your great and good work. thank you for all that you do. if it hadn't been for these colleges and universities, i wouldn't be standing here today. first one in my family to finish high school. first one in my family to go to college. pathway to the middle class, middle america. citizens.s all if it hadn't been for these colleges and universities, we wouldn't have a civil rights movement. maybe martin luther king junior or james farmer. a julian bond. down, notnts sitting standing up. these colleges and universities bring about a nonviolent revolution, a revolution of values, i revolution of ideas. have the podium, i want to take a moment to yield to a friend of mine. >> we were just going to introduce him. >> mr. davis. is -- when it comes to education, he is a champion. danny, thank you. you want to say a word? [applause] congressman davis of chicago. he is a native of arkansas. >> he has hbcus now. actually, two of my heroes have already spoken. there isn't much else that i would need or desire to say, except that the schools have provided and continue to provide, not only the experiences that john has had, but experiences that thousands of young people all over the country. if there was not a morehouse, it kansas orbeen in ar a southern illinois. southern university in louisiana. or could've been all kinds of institutions. please give if you have the resources. i share with dr. lomax when he talked about education and the struggle that we had with them. i share with john all of the struggles that he has had throughout his life and the fact that he is such an inspiration to all of us. thank all of you. [applause] >> thank you all for coming today. to dr. lomax, congressman davis, and the congressman lewis. this has been somewhat of a spontaneous ending but i think it is ending on the right note. also like to thank the national press club staff including the journalism institute and broadcast center for organizing today's lunch. if you would like to get a copy of today's program or to get more information about the national press club, please check out our website at press.org. thank you and we are adjourned. [applause] >> next, president and mrs. obama welcoming olympians to the white house. after that, discussion about journalism with a journalist to receive nsa files from edward snowden. louisiana republican state senator grades the obama administration. >> it really gets to me because i get to know these young men and women when i am out there. i keep seeing some of them killed or amputated. i want out of there as fast as anybody else and let the afghans fight their own fight. i think we have to do it in a prudent way. when i try to say to the mothers when i am talking with them is we can't get too hung iraq ore defects of karzai and the afghan politics. we do have to keep in larger perspective that those who have died did not die in vain. i will go back -- if i said to 2001 that 10 years later they wouldn't be another attack on the united states, most of you listening would say you are wrong. thes because we did take war offense only to al qaeda. if you stand back in the particulars, we are safer today than we were in 2001 and we are well on our way to crushing al qaeda and crushing the jihadists. i think overall we have done a successful job with our military. analyst, andteran, author bing west will take your questions in death live for 3 -- in depth live for three hours. president andhe mrs. obama welcomed athletes from the olympic and paralympic winter games to the white house. the first couple also paid tribute to the victims of the recent fort hood shooting. this is about 20 minutes. >> welcome the president of the united states and mrs. bussell --michelle obama. [applause] >> hey, everybody. >> hi. >> welcome to the white house. [applause] i know you guys have been standing for a while, but you are athletes, you can handle it. we are so excited to lead team usa with us today. before we begin, i want to take a moment to it knowledge -- acknowledge. we have experienced yet another devastating tragedy. we just want to make sure that our thoughts and prayers are with all of those who lost loved ones and friends, as well as those that were injured because i know that many of the athletes here today are veterans themselves. in when something like this happens, it touches all of us. i know that the president and i are torn apart when things like this happen so today as we celebrate the olympic spirit, we remember that the same spirit, the spirit of hard work and teamwork, a shared by her military men and women and we stand with them today and everyday. the -- youget into guys' thing. today, after watching you guys all over tv all these couple of months, i have to say that i am truly amazed. i shared some of this with you guys in the receiving line. you all are so talented, and dedicated, i don't know how you do it. i really don't. i watched you guys do some of the craziest stuff. that is the thing with the winter olympics. you guys do crazy things. careening down the face of mountains -- craziness. throwing each other up in the air. the mixed pairs skaters, the women are teeny. take them and throw them across the ice. are you kidding me? she lands on one foot on a blade. most of you jumping on those cookie sheet things and just lying down a mountain 80 miles per hour. who thinks of that? of everything awe you do as so many people here in america and across the globe are. you all showed us of that being an olympian is about heart, guts, and it is about giving it your all no matter what stands in your way. that is a message i try to convey to young people all the time. the idea that you work hard and commit yourself to a goal and then pick yourself up when you fall, there is nothing you cannot achieve. as olympic and paralympic athletes, you also know that a big part of reaching your full potential is making sure that your putting the right fuel in your body. you all know that better than anyone in this country that what you eat absolutely makes the difference and how you perform. that is another message that i have to -- that i try to spread to her young people, the importance of eating healthy and staying active. i want to thank all of you who take a video -- taped a video for let's move campaign. i want to give a special thank you for their work for giving over 2 million young people an opportunity access in their communities. we are grateful for the work in the example you all set for our young people. you all are expiring -- inspi ring folks every single day. nowhere have i seen that more clearly than in the story of someone that i'm not here in the white house four years ago -- that i met here in the white house four years ago. lieutenant commander dan was seated next to me at a dinner with leaders of our military. i got to see dan. we had dinner together. just a few months earlier, dan had been in afghanistan. he was leading a platoon of navy seals when he stepped on an idd. ed. theost both of his legs in explosion, but he never lost that fighting spirit. i will always remember dan because just four months after that explosion, he finished the half marathon in a wheelchair. four months after the exposure and. on the one-year anniversary of his injuries, he ran a mile on his prosthetics. over the next few years, dan stayed on active duty while in the navy, earning medals in atmming and running events the warrior games and completing the new york city marathon. today, four and a half years after his injuries, dan is proud to wear another one of our nation's uniforms and that is of team usa. [applause] yeah. there is dan. dan is in the back. >> wave, dan. there's dan. [applause] i also got to meet dan's sister who stayed by his side every single minute of his recovery. important part of that recovery. she is a terrific woman. i'm glad to hear that she is doing well. in sochi, dan inspired us all again by competing in the 15 k biathlon in the cross-country sprint. dan has come a long way in the four years that we met and i know that his story and the stories of all our olympians and paralympic ends are nowhere near finished. so, keep it up. this is only the beginning. many of you were here four years ago and you told us you would be back and you are back. i know you're already getting ready for that next four years that in the meantime, we look forward to all that you were going to do in this country and around the world and keep justring young people to live a little more like you all live and to show them that spirit of resistance. thank you all again for everything you do. i can't wait to hear about everything you will do in the years to come. with that, i will turn it over to this guy next to me. [laughter] who happens to be my husband and more importantly is the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] clear, it is more important that i am michelle's husband than i am president of the united states. [applause] i don't want anybody to be confused. many of you young people out there are not married yet so i wanted you to know -- giving you some tips in terms of how to prioritize. obviously, as michelle mentioned, our thoughts right now in many ways are with the families at fort hood. these are folks who make such extraordinary sacrifices for us each and every day for our freedom. during the course of a decade at war, many of them have multiple tours of duty. to see unspeakable, senseless violence happen in a place where they are supposed to feel safe is tragic. obviously, this is the second time the fort hood community has been affected. we joined the entire community in honoring those who lost their lives, every single one was an american patriot. we stand with their families and loved ones as they grieve. we are thinking about those who are wounded. we are there to support them. as we learn more about what happened and why, we are going to make sure we do everything we can to keep our troops safe, strong, and not just on the battlefield but when they come home. they have done their duty and they are an inspiration. they have made us proud. they put on the uniform and they take care of us. we need to make sure we take care of them. is whatspirit of unity brings us here today because we cannot be prouder of team usa. [applause] team usa. i hope all of you have made yourselves at home. we double checked to make sure all the bathroom locks were --king in case johnny quinn [laughter] tried to bust down these antique doors. i want to recognize the members of the congress we have here as well. scott blackmun from the usoc. our fantastic navigations that represent the diversity and values of our country so well. we are here to celebrate all of you. our olympians and paralympic ends who brought home a total of 46 medals for the red, white, and blue. [applause] that ken alsod brought home some stray dogs. that doesn't count but it does tell something about the freestyle skiers. over the past couple of months, we saw some dominating performances by team usa. american women won more medals in the olympics then women of any other nation. [applause] good job. the man swept the podium in slope style skiing and paralympic scott -- snowboarding. there you go. [applause] our women's hockey team brought home the silver. [applause] our men's hockey team played a game for the ages with an epic shootout victory over the russians. [applause] i would personally like to thank all of our snowboarders and freestyle skiers for making newscasters across america say things like air to fakey. forkhe back to back double 1260. i don't know what that means really but i just want to say it. [laughter] i am pretty sure i am the first president to ever say that. [applause] the back to back double fork 12 60. does it feel good? [laughter] sochi, these athletes made plenty of history. score threeear-old goals to make her sled hockey team to win back-to-back gold medals. [applause] hey. hey, hey. our men's bobsled team became the first americans in 62 years to meddle in both the two-man and four-man competitions. [applause] bobslee ter's -- dders. those are tough guys. shiffrin mikayla became the youngest woman to win a medal in the slalom. wave a littl ebit. -- a little bit. she is down low. there she is. i knew she was here, i saw her. she said she wanted to win five golds in 2018. i do have to say as somebody who was once told that you are young but you set your sights high, i have three words of advice -- go for it. you are goingnt to be bringing back some more golds. of lobbying from team usa, women's ski jumping was added as an olympic sport and they did outstanding. [applause] men. can fly just like said we havee arrived, we are good at what we do, and we are a lot prettier than the buoy jumpers -- then the buoy jumpers -- boy jumpers which i can attest to. i have seen them. [laughter] she was not lying. to theski jumpers athletes and coaches to sewer our country in uniform like dan who we are so proud of. these athletes all send a message that resonates far beyond the limited visage -- olympic village. going for the gold and pushing yourselves to be the best and inspire the rest of us to try to be a little better. just get off the couch. that is what michelle said. all of you remind us, just like the olympics, the most important thing in life is not the triumph, it is the fight. i want to take an example of somebody who could not be here today but his story is typical of so many of yours. this is noel pace. he was hoping to be here. she has been on the road a lot. she wanted to give back to her husband and kid. almost a decade ago, noel was on top of the world after winning the women's skeleton world cup. she was injured in a freak accident that caused her to stop. she missed the podium by 1/10 of a second in 2010. she retired to spend more time with her family but then two years ago, her husband convinced her to go back on that sled because raising a family in racing down the track don't have to be mutually exclusive. since then, noel, her husband, her children traveled from competition to competition. silver inome the skeleton jumping over the wall to celebrate with her family on the final run. here is what she said afterwards -- life is never going to go as planned. just decide when you were bumped off course, is a good hold you back or move you forward? that is the spirit we celebrate today. that is something that all of you in some stages of your life have understood or will understand. things are not going to go perfect. michele and i always remark watching our olympians and that you work hard for four years and then a little something to happen. you are just that close. confidence and the and the joy of competition that keeps you moving, that is going help you throughout life. it helps our country. it is what america is all about. it is why we're so proud to have you all here today. and four years from now, i won't be here to greet you, but some president is going to. i suspect that a lot of you may come back even four years after that. you guys have done a great job. what an extraordinary achievement it is for all of you to represent the united states of america at our olympic and paralympic games. congratulations. good job. [applause] >> mr. president and mrs. obama, on behalf of the teams, we want to present you with these flags. just to say thank you from our coaching staff and the athletes that were competing. [applause] >> you were freestyler. [laughter] [indiscernible] [applause] >> next, discussion about journalism and national security with the journalist who received an essay files from edward snowden. a louisiana republican state senator grades the obama administration. after that, the president of the united negro college fund, michael lomax, on the feature in this organization. bend is a timber town. the timber qualities are almost completely removed. bend was at imbe timber town. at the height of the timber industry -- if you were to drop 1928, you would have smelled the mills, sawdust if you went through certain parts of town. you would hear periodic mill whistles from the two gigantic mills. it would've permeated everything. it would've been 10 minutes off the downtown corridor, but you would've seen the smoke from the smokestacks. you would've smelled it, you would've heard the whistles. you would've known you were in the middle of timber town, usa. looks at the life of a band, organ. -- bend, oregon. >> a conversation with the three journalists who received files from edward snowden. all appeared via skype at the conference in new york city. toenwald has not returned the u.s. since the story because she fears arrest or subpoena. this is 45 minutes. >> hello, please take your seats. and welcome back. this next event, i promise, is going to be interesting. it's a skyped interview on the snowden revelations, and it involves actually four skypes.
meredith attwell baker is the new presidd ceo of ctia, the wireless association. commissioner, tell us about your association, who do you represent, what industry? >> guest: well, first of all, thanks for having me here. it's delightful to be back, especially now that i am representing this amazing industry that is really the platform where everything is growing off of. who is ctia? we are not only the network operators, we are the people that build those networks, we are the manufacturers, and we have the app community as well as the new silicon valley. we are, we are the connective life, and that's what ctia represents, and what we are hoping to educate washington about, and i just couldn't be any more thrilled to be with them. >> host: what is the biggest issue facing washington and your industry? >> guest: i think our top priority is always going to be spectrum. spectrum is what the wireless industry needs, it's what we run on. it's been six years wince receive had a -- since we've had a spectrum auction. this one that starts in 22 days which is aws3, those are both fantastic. if we were talking about the networks that our phones are running on right now, that spectrum was coming from the aws1 auction that happened last time. so spectrum is always going to be our top issue. we are excited about these two auctions coming up, but we want to know what's next, so we'll be working on spectrum, spectrum, spectrum for quite a while. >> host: are you satisfied with the progress, especially on the incentive auction? >> guest: i'm terrifically happy with progress on both aws3. if you remember, i was at the commerce department during aws1, and this is repurposing spectrum from the department of defense. and this process, the lessons learned, have really been learned. it's going wonderfully. and aws3 spectrum is paired, it's internationally harmonized, it's 65 megahertz. we are so excited about aws3. and then we're going to turn around and have the broadcast incentive auction. i think that discussion is really going well too. i think that we have the green hill report which the fcc put out which values the spectrum, those numbers have really turned the discussion from a policy discussion to a business decision which is where that discussion needed to turn to. so we're excited about both options. i'm certain that our carriers are going to come to them, and it's going to be a win/win situation for everyone. >> host: how long does it take from an auction to get spectrum online? >> guest: well, it can take quite a while which is why we're focused on the next band we want. typically, these come out of budget discussions, so i think when we hit budget discussions in 2016, we need to have a clear idea of what we want for next. we are the world's leader in 4g lte networks, so we are the world's leader in mobile right now. we need to remain the leader for 5g as well, so spectrum is the key to that, and that's why we're so focused on it. >> host: joining our discussion today is amy schatz, senior editor for tech policy at recold. ms. schatz, what is recode? >> it's a tech news web site, and we cover all things tech including washington. >> host: and this was normed by walt moss burg, the former tech columnist -- >> yeah. we used to be called all things d, and we spun out of the "wall street journal," the whole team, and we're very happy to be there. >> host: go on with the questioning. >> so let's talk about the spectrum auction. in the green hill report which i know broadcasters were looking at with great interest because it finally showed some numbers which they had been asking for for months, but that report also suggested broadcasters would give maybe 120 megahertz, something like 100 megahertz for your members to buy. do you think -- a lot of folks thought that was kind of a stretch goal, they might not get that much. where do you think these things stand? >> there are 2100 broadcasters out there, so each one has to make their own bids decision. -- business decision. whatever they want to put out there, we are going to buy -- be there with checkbooks and buy it up. >> there other things you think the agency needs to do to try to encourage broadcasters to come to the table and sell their spectrum? >> guest: i think the agency is doing a great balancing act. we have a couple technical issues that need to be resolved, because if our guys are going to come to the table, they want to know what kind of interference they're going to have. the fcc's doing a great scwoob, and i'm certain it's going to be a great success. >> is there anything else your organization's trying to do to help encourage broadcasters come to the table? go out on a road show soon to try to talk to the broadcasters? >> guest: we're going to make sure that the broadcasters have the information they need. that's our job, because we are really interested in this auction. >> host: meredith atwell basic, should there be set asides for smaller organizations? >> guest: our job is to get the spectrum out there. we don't take a position on how to do that. the fcc should do that. >> host: amy schatz. >> i think the other big issue really that's facing you guys right now is net neutrality, and it feels like from everything that's coming out of the agency and coming out of the hill that the fcc is going to reverse course and actually apply net neutrality rules to wireless networks where in 2010 they gave you all an exception saying the networks were different, and now they're starting to look the other way. what do you think the state of play is on that? can you convince them to move back? >> guest: so i want to start with the fact that we all believe in an open internet and that we need to have rules, we just believe we need to have specific rules that take the differences of wireless into accounts. there are really three differences the rules need to account or if or. the -- for. the first is technical, wireless is a scarce resource, and we all share it. for instance, if the three of us were actually on a phone call, i was on a phone call, you were doing e-mail and peter was, you know, looking -- >> he's on facebook. we all know peter -- >> guest: i was going to say, he was checking the video slips from last night -- [laughter] we would all be on the same shell. this is a shared resource, and if brian had a bunch of tour kids and he was touring c-span to them, they would also be on our same cell. we have to prioritize so all of us can have the best use of the network. the second difference between wireless and everything else is how competitive we are. did you know that 8 out of 10 americans can choose from one of four service providers? and of those four service providers, they're providing like a hundred different service plans. so it's a very competitive environment. and we're really new. we are just unleashing the lte platforms, and we are still rolling out things like lte voice, lte broadcast, lte accreditation. so we want to make sure we can experiment and differentiate our services to customers because wireless is not only different, it's not at all the same. >> yeah. but the same thing was true four years ago, and they're looking a lot differently now. isn't the fact that they moved forward, what kind of conditions should they put in there to insure all the school kids coming in to see c-span can get on their phones and facebook? >> guest: so we just need to take in the differences. in 2010 they said we have always intended for wireless to be under the open internet rules, we're just not sure how to do it. and since 2010 our mobile speeds have grown eight times, mobile data has increased by 730%. we still believe in an open internet, and we will always believe in an open bear net, we -- internet, we just need to make sure we don't inhibit this incredible platform for the future. gm wrote a letter, and it says something when i say this but i say it all the time, net neutrality, you know, important title ii, bad. but when gm says we need mobile-specific rules and we need to make sure we do not apply wired network rules to wireless, i think when we're looking at the next generation of connected car and they're concerned about that, we should really take note about that because we don't want to inhibit the next generation of connected cars or mobile health or mobile payments. all of these things are here. i use my -- i used apple pay yesterday at whole foods. they're all here, and they're only going to grow, and so we want to make sure we are the world's leader in these networks. >> host: well, meredith attwell baker, if you were still with comcast, would you be arguing that the wired carriers should have the same rules as the wireless or less rules? >> guest: i don't -- i think that wireless, wireless-specific rules are important for the future of the wireless platform. >> host: you said there was three differences, i heard two; the technical differences, the competitive differences, what was the third? >> guest: the fact that we're so new. marty cooper, who's the inventer of the cell phone, fantastic man, he said we're at the model t version of this. so we are just starting to see the benefits of the lte platform and what mobile is going to bring to our lives whether it's our education of our children or the health of our parents. what mobile is going to provide not only now, in the next two years, in the next five years is going to make a difference for our entire economy, and we want to make sure that we have the right, proper environment. you know, we are leading, and i'm not sure why you would change the rules when we are leading. i think it's almost reckless. i think that the court has given the fcc a clear path under 706 to have rules that will be legally upheld, that gives us the earn the city and security -- certainty and is security that we can innovate, and i think the fcc should continue on that path with 706 rules with mobile-specific rules attached to that. >> host: and meredith attwell baker mentioned marty cooper who's been on this show, if you would like to watch the interview with him, go to c-span.org clash communicator -- c-span.org/communicators, type in his name. >> i don't want to beat a good horse, but it doesn't look like, obviously, you would suggest they should go under 706, there's a whole other con contit saying there should be be a hybrid model, something in between. if they go forward with title ii, what do you think they should forbear from or what parts of title ii might be appropriate versus what parts would just have your members just screaming in horror? >> guest: none. it's unnecessary, it's complex, it has no precedent, and it undoes ten years of legal precedent and fcc precedents of bipartisan decisions. so there's no part of title ii that should work here. the court has given the fcc a road map to legally sustainable rules, and they should follow that road map so that we can all move on from this conversation and start talking back about spectrum. >> host: well, she promised, but i didn't. [laughter] back to title ii, ifs fcc does move forward with that, would there be a lawsuit? >> guest: yes. >> host: would you file it? >> guest: there's going to be a lawsuit under title ii. i think we have a legally sustainable way forward under section 706 with mobile-specific rules. i think we are all comfortable with that path. i think that that's the way the fcc should go, and we should not throw more uncertainty into this debate. >> okay. equally fun but totally different topic, t.r. daily this week was looking at these below-the-line charges that are stuck on people's phone bills and something needs to be done about that because they're basically junk fees and consumers, a, don't know what the heck they are, and, b, don't know why they should be paying them. is there more the district could be doing to prevent those kinds of fees? what should your members do? >> guest: let's be clear, what you're talking about are third party, bad actors who are committing fraud on our consumers, and we absolutely need to be more cognizant and more looking at our bills more clearly and educating our consumers to do so as well. we will continue to work with the goth on these issues -- the government on these issues, but there is a fantastic platform in this texting that is being used for charitable and for political donations. it's easy, and it's reaped amazing benefits. if you look at the red cross, texting with the red cross, for haiti it brought in $32 million. that's fantastic and really easy for people to donate. so i think we need to be really cognizant of fraud, but i also think we ought to maintain this platform for good. >> they also brought in hundreds of millions of dollars of fake horoscopes and celebrity gossip. i'm going to spend $10 a month for it, right? so it seems like the ftc has taken a huge move on this, and they've had encoursement actions -- enforcement actions, the fcc is getting involved on the privacy side. but another aspect is in-out where people are able to buy things via the play store or itunes, anything like that. is there more the industry could do? are there a possibility of, like, you know, industry regulations or self-regulations that you guys might be looking at? >> guest: i think we're always looking at our billing to make sure it's ease is city for consumers. i think there's -- easy for consumers. i think we all need to be really careful both of our identity and our privacy as well as our bills. and so i think we'll continue to work on an education for consumers and work with the government when there are bad actors. >> host: commissioner attwell baker, i'd like to get your viewpoint on this: how does it affect the wireless industry? cbs has now created an app that you can subscribe to directly. hbo, some of the hollywood theaters, styled owes as well -- studios as well. it looks like there could be a growing trend to break up cable television as it now looks like. how does that affect the wireless industry? >> guest: so is we love video. video has increased 730 times on the mobile network since 2010. it's really exciting that they are seeing that this this is a e platform for their content. so we're excited about it. what does it mean? we're going to have to even more carefully manage our networks, and it means, guess what? we need more spectrum. >> host: it comes back to spectrum. >> guest: i t does. >> host: what about cramming? do you think the industry has taken a strong enough stand against cramming? >> guest: that's the discussion that amy and i were just having about texting and how it's a platform for good, but we've had third party fraudulent actors on this, and i think we all need to be very vigilant about that, and we're going to continue to work with the government on it. >> host: would you support legislation in congress? >> guest: it depends on what that legislation says, but certainly, we do not want -- we want to protect our consumers as much as the consumers want to be protected. >> speaking of congress, what do you think is going to happen and how does the landscape change for the industry if republicans take control of the senate in november? >> guest: the fantastic thing about the mobile industry is that everyone supports it, and it's bicameral, bipartisan issues that we have to make sure that our consumers have what they need for the future. >> i think, well, look. i mean, most people love to the look at their phones particularly when they're stuck in hearings that go on forever. i'm not sure they really love a lot of the things the wireless industry does whether it's junk fees or data caps, all these other things. so you can love the product without loving -- >> guest: think about some of the bipartisan things we've been working on. infrastructure, we all believe we need more built out so we can have better wireless services to connect our lives. we believe federal incentives are something we can really work with with the congress so we can figure out how to incentivize the federal government agencies to take a look at their efficient says and how they use their spectrum to possibly repurpose it to all of our better use. we look at the technologies that the federal governments are using, and we all think maybe we should talk about how the federal government agencies can use lte in the platform to both improve their services as well as have, you know, more modern, more modern technologies. >> host: commissioner baker, how are people using their cell phones? what have you found? >> guest: well, it's really incredible. it's connected learning. if you look at the kids, it's all they use, you know? i think the hispanic chamber of commerce just wrote a letter, and they said 9 out of 10 hispanics use -- are completely dependent on their mobile phone. they went on to say they did not want the fcc to change any of the rules they have regarding net neutrality because, in fact, the hispanic community -- both business and consumers -- have grown so dependent on the mobile platform. so it's enhancing our lives in education, in health, in mobile payments. i've been lucky enough to travel since i took this job. i was down in atlanta at at&t's connected car drive studio. it's incredible what they are doing with the connected car. it was so exciting that i said we need to bring that to d.c. and so next week we've got a connected car event at the fcc so that everyone can see what this technology is going to do to our cars not only today, but tomorrow. and it's going to make us more connected, but more importantly, it's going to make us more safe. it's really exciting. >> host: what about the distracted driving issue? >> guest: well, it's something we're absolutely concerned about. something i feel very, very strongly about. one cannot text and drive can. we educate every place we can at ctia. i think it's a really serious problem. what we need to do is educate, we need to have laws that don't allow it, and we need to enforce it and teach it to our children, and we need to integrate that into the car so it makes it safer and not distracted. >> host: we've been live anything a 4g world now for the last couple of years. when are we going to be living in a 5g world, and what does that mean? >> guest: it's a great question, and i would say we started rolling out 4g networks in 2010. there's still a lot of room on that platform for a lot more exciting things that are coming to make our life more connected. but you're right, we need to start thinking about 5g. the rest of the world is. it's no longer a wireless issue, it's an economic issue. so you see countries like korea and japan talking about 5g. we need to talk about it too. commissioner rosenworcel's been really on the front of this, and i commend her for that. i think we'll start to see 5g from these auctions that are happening the beginning aws in 22 days. my guess is that spectrum is purposed for 5g, and we'll start seeing rollout 2020 or so. >> host: is it important that there are four major national wireless carriers? do you have a problem with sprint and t-mobile or whoever merging? >> guest: so there are four, there are four major wireless carriers that everyone refers to. there are tons of rural carriers still. there are lots of -- this is the most competitive industry that i have ever seen. just read my ceo's tweets. [laughter] these guys are fantastically competing to the benefit of consumers, and that's what we want. >> host: so would you have a problem with sprint/t-mobile merging? >> guest: so you know we don't take positions on mergers. i'm just excited it's such a competitive industry that everyone wants to be a part of it. >> host: amy schatz. >> the carriers have been in some ways resisting the commission's e-911 location accuracy proceeding. which i wonder if you could address why. because it feel like if i'm on my iphone and i'm in this building, i feel like it would be a really good thing that ems would know where i was if i was having a heart attack. why are the carriers resisting this? >> guest: we all want to bring our customers the most fantastic next generation of 911. we're trying to bring all the players to the table to figure out what it needs -- what everyone needs, what do the public safety officials need so that we can best deliver that to them? we want to have a realistic technology-tested, technology-tested solution. and with that solution we want to have a realistic timetable that rolls out. but we all want to make sure that our customers are safer, and we all are excited about the benefits of next generation 911. we just want to make sure we come up with a realistic solution we can achieve. >> is it the timetable or the technology that's sort of tripping everybody up? >> guest: both. it's both. when we've run the tests on the solutions that we thought were going to work, they don't work yet. so it's both. >> is that something that the carriers could take more of a lead on? >> guest: we are all at the table. we all want this to happen. we all think it's critically important that ems can find you not only on, not only in this building, but at this table. >> host: commissioner, the fbi director recently spoke up and said he wishes that -- he thinks it's important that apple and verizon, etc., etc., have locaters in their phones so that they can, they can track hem, if necessary. what's the industry's position? >> guest: so privacy is a balance we have to have. we want to make sure we protect our consumers' privacy as well as work with law enforcement. so a lot of these rules, we're working with law enforcement, and we want to continue to work with them. encryption's important for our consumers' protection of their privacy and their data, so it's a balance. it's always a balance with privacy and law enforcement. a lot of the laws that you are referring to, ecpa, they are from 1984 and 1996. much like the communications act because the industry has changed so much, it's a good idea to look back at these laws and revisit them and see if they might need to be updated as well. >> host: what are you hearing from consumers who say is, no, i don't want -- it's not important that you know where i am at all times. >> guest: as i said, it's a critical -- i think consumers and privacy, it's important that it will opt in, and it's important that consumers pay attention to see, to see whether they want to be located or not. i personally love all of the benefits that location, accuracy and all of the apps are providing me. i don't know that i could find a restaurant now without some of those apps. certainly, i am really -- i love everything that that is bringing to me on my phone. but i also am conscious of the fact that i am giving up my privacy to be able to reap the benefit of that. and i think as long as it is an opt-in and consumers are educated to know what is happen with their location data, then they get to make their own choices whether they want to use that or not. >> host: do you see us living in an answer world for -- apps world for quite a while? is there a post-apps world out there? >> guest: gosh, i wish i were visionary enough to know. i'm excited about where we are right now. if you'd said in 2010 are we going to live in an apps world, i would have never thought we would have had thousands of them and the benefit that has brought to our economy and our lives. so i hope so. >> so how long have you been at ctia now, it's beenless than a year, right? >> guest: four months. >> going fast. how is this different than working at nbc? >> guest: oh, entirely different. mbc was a fantastic -- nbc was a fantastic job. i would have never left that job but for ctia. i started my career there, but i would say most of my career has led me in dealing with spectrum in one way or another whether it was for the federal government or being a broadcaster or running the commercial part of spectrum over at the fcc. so being at ctia and having priorities being spectrum, spectrum, spectrum is sort of like the perfect job for me, and really i just am so grateful to be here and so excited. >> how does this happen? when you were in college, yes, i really want to be in charge of spectrum and understand these technical things. how did you fall into it? maybe this was your plan, i don't know. >> guest: you know, i always tell the college-aged kids that people either go into their career and it's a straight line and they know exactly where they want to go, our maybe it's -- or maybe it's like me because i wanted to go to the state department, and i landed in congressional affairs which led me to have an interest in washington, and one job has just led me to another to become an expert in spectrum. my job i think i just landed into it, and it guided me into it. >> host: and meredith at well baker has a bachelor of arts degree and a law degree from the university of houston, so you are not a techie by trade. >> guest: not at all. i can give you the chewing tobacco version of technology. >> host: and final question. california passed the kill switch law. what's the industry's position, and do you see it going national? >> guest: so we worked hard with california, and i'm really proud of the industry on stolen phones and how we've stepped up. we have an incredible education effort on both how to protect your phone as well as what to do when it is stolen. we also have worked on a database as well as, most importantly, we have voluntarily agreed to have a tool kit for stolen phones in your -- as part of your phone with no charge to the consumer. so i think, again, it's part of the importance of a phone in someone's life now, but we need to work with this x it's an important issue and a priority for us. i'm happy the way the california law turned out, but i've got to say it does not lend itself in manufacturing phones to 50 states having 50 different laws. so i think that we as an industry really need to step up, as we have, to solve this problem for consumers. it's an, laws are static, and this is an iterative, always-growing, always-better-solution-more -- tomorrow kind of problem. hopefully we will not see 50 different laws. >> host: meredith attwell baker, amy schatz, thank you. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 5 years ago -- 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> the center for american progress will hold a panel discussion today on postsecondary education funding. education officials, including education undersecretary ted mitchell, will offer recommendations for state reinvestment in public colleges and universities. live beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> at the national press club last week, labor secretary thomas perez discussed jobs and the economy, raising the minimum wage and bringing jobs back to cities like detroit. he also said the u.s. needs to catch up with the rest of the world on the issue of paid leave. this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. welcome. my name is myron belkind, i'm an add jubt professor at the george washington university school of media and public affairs and the 107th president of the national press club. the national press club is the world's leading professional organization for journalists committed to our profession's future through our programming with events such as this while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our web site at press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i'd like to welcome our speaker and those of you attending today's event. our head table includes guests of our speaker as well as working journalists who are club members, and so if you hear applause in our audience, i note that members of the general public are attending as well. so it's not necessarily evidence of a lack of journalistic objectivity. i'd also like to welcome our c-span and public radio audiences. you can follow the action on twitter using the hashtag npclunch. after our guest's speech concludes, we'll have a question and answer period. i will ask ask as many questions as time permits. now it's time to introduce our head table guests. i'd like each of you to stand briefly as your name is announced. from are your right, thomas sanchez, founder and ceo -- [inaudible] jamila bay, freelance journalist. michelle -- [inaudible] u.s. economy reporter at bloomberg news. matthew cutty, washington bureau chief of cnbc and guest of our speaker. susan page, washington bureau chief, "usa today." tom trainer, district supervisor, market basket superintendents and guest of our speaker. terry -- [inaudible] buffalo news washington bureau chief, chairman of the npc speakers' committee and a former president of the national press club. skipping our speaker for a moment, allison fitzgerald, senior investigative reporter and project manager at the center for public integrity, an npc board member and organizer of today's luncheon. thank you very much, allison. timothy noah, politico and best of our speaker. marilyn -- [inaudible] senior business editor of npr and an npc board member. sabrina eaton of the cleveland dealer, and jennifer -- [inaudible] president of respectability usa.org. our guest today has been the subject of rumor and speculation -- [laughter] for the last two weeks since his name surfaced as a favorite to replace eric holder as attorney general. but for now at least, thomas perez is still the secretary of labor. since being confirmed by the senate in july 2013, perez, it seems, has been everywhere; in houston eating with union leaders one day, in memphis competing in a nail-driving contest with a carpenter in another and meeting with unemployed workers in cleveland yet another. on the first friday of every month he's all over the airwaves talking about the nation's falling unemployment rate, and when he's here in town, he's likely to be spotted at -- at least until last month -- at nationals park. perez has been traveling the country preaching his gospel that hard work deserves a living wage. as head of the labor department, he's advocated raising the minimum wage to $10.10, pushed for paid parental leave and worked to reduce the number of workers who are categorized as contractors. and is he's been active on worker protections, often to the dismay of business leaders. in his first three months at labor, the department issues new regulations on wages, hiring and chemical exposure. the son of immigrants from the dominican republic who settled in buffalo, perez has a long history in washington as a defender of civil rights. he was an adviser to senator ted kennedy and spent many years in the justice department's office of civil rights. perez led the division before president obama appointed him to the labor department last year. now, according to some press reports, obama is considering sending perez back to justice to replace holder who announced last month that he plans to step down. perez is not without his detractors, however. before becoming labor secretary, he endured a grueling confirmation process in which mitch mcconnell, the leader of the senate republican committee called him an idealogue. the -- ladies and gentlemen, please give a warm national press club welcome to labor secretary tom perez. [applause] >> good afternoon. myron, thank you for that generous welcome. i might talk later bit about the buffalo bills, but we'll save that for another time, jerry. and thanks to everybody at the press club including my good friend allison fitzgerald who live in the neighborhood. we're overrepresented and took home a park here today. but that's okay. tim's an extacoma park resident. thank you for having me. you know, over the summer something remarkable's happened around new england. thousands of employers of the regional supermarket chain market basket walked off the job to protest the firing of their ceo, arthur. workers up and down the chain of command put their jobs on the line, they held rallies and picket throughout the summer. eight managers who spearheaded the first rally -- some of whom had been with the company for more than 40 years -- were fired. loyal customers held their own rally. merchandise sale ises started to dwindle, sales lacked, veb doors began to cut their ties with the company, and governor of two states stepped in to try and broker a deal. and in the end, arthur t. took back control of the company. and just in time for labor day, the market basket employees went to work. now, the company employees, they have 71 full-service supermarkets across new england, they employ roughly 25,000 people, and these employees had one simple gland. they were calling for the -- demand. they were calling for the return of their ceo. and upon his return, arthur t. stood on the back of a pickup truck and made a very memorable speech, and this is what he said: you have demonstrated that everyone here has a purpose. you've demonstrated that everyone has meaning, and no one person is better or more important than another. whether it's a full-timer or a part-timer, whether it's a sacker or, a cashier, a grocery clerk, truck driver, warehouse selector, store manager, supervisor, customer, vendor, or a ceo, we are all equal by working together and only together do we succeed. now, they launched their protests because they wanted to work for a guy like arthur t., someone who didn't treat 'em just like they were another cost of doing business, but rather, as a valuable asset. worthy of dignity. he understands that doing right by your employees is great way to generate loyalty and productivity, adding value for customers and increasing your profit margins. he knows that ap economy that works -- an economy that works for everyone is an economy where prosperity is shared. now, as they were getting up and running again, i had the privilege along with some of my friends in labor to travel with the president on labor day weekend to milwaukee where the president gave a speech in which he said by almost every measure the american economy and american workers are better off than when i took office. and the data backs him up. september was the 55th straight month of private sector job growth to the tune of 10.3 million new jobs, that's the longest uninterrupted streak of job creation on record. unemployment is now at its lowest levels since july of 2008. all told, the united states has put more people back to work than europe, japan and every advanced economy combined. manufacturing continues to make a historic comeback. we're making things here in america again. insourceing is in, outsourcing is out. energy production is dramatically up while the budget deficit is down. u.s. exports are up, reaching record highs. and for the first time since 2006 the poverty rate is down. child poverty had its largest one year decline last year since 1966. the number of young people graduating high school is up while the crime and incarceration rates are down. and, you know, reforming the health care system was i guess in the words of bind, we'll just call it a b.d. and stick with that. [laughter] because thanks to the affordable care act, we've reduced the ranks of uninsured adults by 10.3 million since last year. it's undeniably true that we've made tremendous progress in these six years since the president inherited the worst economic crisis of our lifetime. remember, the three months before the president took office two million jobs were lost, and almost every indicator shows that we're better off now than we were on january 20, 2009. but that's not enough. remember what the president said in these remarks. he said by almost every measure. almost isn't good enough. it's not good enough for the president, it's not good enough for me, and it's not good enough for america. it's not good enough for the man i met in new jersey in one of my meetings with the long-term unemployed who had a six-figure job in the advertising industry is, lost his job and now he's struggling to make ends meet, and he told me, you know, when i had cancer, tom, fighting cancer was far easier than fighting long-term employment. almost isn't good enough for roberta in houston, a janitor for over 30 years, and even though she helped organize her coworkers, she still struggles to keep her head above water. $8th -- $8.85 an hour just isn't enough to make ends meet, and an increase this the minimum wage would go a long toward giving her some peace of mind. almost isn't good enough for the new mom from texas who wrote to us after we were doing our paid leave campaign. she had to go without pay for six months that take time off to be with her daughter who was born nine weeks premature. we're the only industrialized country on the planet that doesn't have a paid leave law. frankly, there's just no dignity in working 40-50 hours a week and getting your food at the food pantry. for them and for all these other families who continue to struggle, the data points don't mean a whole lot. if the breadwinner is out of work, then the unemployment rate might as well be 100%. and even if that breadwinner has been lucky enough to keep her job, chances are she hasn't seen a meaningful raise in years even though she's contributing to a growing economy with her hard work. the fact of the matter is the pie is getting bigger, american workers help bake it, but they're not getting a bigger slice. their sweat equity is not translating into financial equity. we're on pace in 2014 for the best year of private is sector job growth since 1998. but the difference between mow and then is that in the late '90s the rising tide lifted more boats. it lifted the yachts and the rafts. it lifted the cruise linerses and the dinghies. and the principal unfinished business, it seems to me, of this recovery is to insure that prosperity is broadly shared and we build an economy that truly and meaningfully works for everyone. i hear it, the problem is, quote-unquote, structural whether it's low wages or long-term unemployment and globalization and technological progress create inherent and intractable inequities and inequalities and opportunity gaps. well, i'll tell you for one thing, i don't buy it. structural unemployment, for me that amounts to excuse making, a word to jump inner shah -- justify inyou are shah and just plain giving up. and i'm not giving up up, this president isn't giving up. we must remember low wages and lousy benefits are a choice, not a necessity. that's why i am confident that we can construct a stairway to shared prosperity in which everybody has a chance to live their highest and best dreams. and that's what i want to talk to you about. this stairway has a number of important steps starting with tearing up the talking points and understanding history. shared prosperity is not a fringe concept cooked up by socialists. historically, both parties have embraced it in both their words and, indeed, their actions. it's a principle that's american as apple pie, and it's a linchpin of a thriving middle class. now, don't cake my word for it, here's -- don't take my word for it, here's what teddy roosevelt said: our aim is to promote prosperity and see that it is passed around and there is a proper division of prosperity. listen to one of wall street's most powerful executives, lloyd blankfein, ceo of goldman sachss, who said he talked about the destabilizing impacts of income inequality. this is what he said: too much of the gdp over the last generation has gone to too few of the people. standard & poor's recently issued a report explaining that income inequality is stifling gdp growth at a time when we're still climbing out of the great recession. a rising tide lifting all boats, but a lifeboat surrounded by many treading water risks capsizing. more recently -- actually, just three days ago, this is what janet yellen said. the the extent of and continuing increase in inequality in the united states greatly concern me. it's no secret that the past few decades of widening inequality can be summed up as significant income and wealth gains for those at the very top and stagnant living standards for the majority. so people across the ideological spectrum recognize that america works best when we field a full team, and when the entire team shares in the sacrifices and the spoils. gilded ages are not and never will be golden ages in america. but in today's political climate and the polarization, i feel like there are some who have regrettably lost sight of the fact that shared prosperity is a nonpartisan principle that's a key to long-term success. now, another step in this stairway to shared prosperity is a very familiar one. we have basic, common sense toolings at our disposal, tools that have worked well in the past and work well again. for start isers, we need to raise the minimum wage. and despite what you've heard on capitol hill, this isn't a radical concept. the congress, led by newt gingrich, passed it. every president except two since fdr has signed it into law. but we've been tuck at $7.25 for five years. the purchasing power of the minimum wage is 20% less than it was 20 years ago. the third lowest, i should say, among oecd countries, the third lowest. and meanwhile, if you look across the pond and see uncountries governed by conservative leadership such as the country of the u.k. where they recently announced an increase in the minimum wage to $11.05 an hour, and why did they do this? they did it for the same reason that that flaming liberal henry ford did it. he doubled the wages for people on the assembly line because, as he said, country wide high wages spell country wide prosperity. so this is not a fringe idea. strong majority of folks and a majority of small businesses support increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 because they understand that raising wages generates economic growth, and what businesses need more than anything as the business owner in seattle said to me a few months ago are customers. they understand that 70% of gdp growth is consumption. so let's stimulate consumption in order to strengthen the economy and continue and pick up the pace of recovery. we also need to have our infrastructure investments. we need to rebuild our roads and bridges and ports and transit systems. and, again, these are opportunities to create middle class jobs right away. and facilitate commerce for decades and decades to come. yes, it involves federal spending, but it involves federal spending when dwight eisenhower created the interstate highway system as one of his most enduring legacies. now, as someone who was a former local elected official and worked on transportation issues, i can tell you, we can't build a 21st century infrastructure when we're living year to year, month to month on transportation budgets. and so that is why long-term planning so critically important. and we also need to fix our broken immigration system. and as you know, it's not simply a moral or humanitarian or national security imperative, it's an economic imperative. the cbo estimates that immigration reform would increase real gdp relative to current projections by 5.4% over the next two decades which translates into an additional 1.4 trillion of economic activity, adding jobs, putting upward pressure on wages, helping to stabilize the social security trust fund. so these three ideas when you think about 'em, they've worked in the past, they've enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the past, and we need to do them again now because they are critical to our nation's continued growth. but we shouldn't stop there, and congress shouldn't stop there. and the third step to shared prosperity is that we need to continue to think big, and we need to continue to think bold. comprehensive immigration reform is big and bold, and there are other ideas that we should be using and implementing as well. and let me give you one example because this example i have seen across the country in my conversations is a sleeper issue that will sleep no more. and that is the issue of paid leave. we stand alone as the only industrialized nation on the planet where paid leave is not the law of the land. and our dismal record on paid leave, for me, was on prominent display when i recently traveled to australia for the meeting of the g20 labor ministers. when you look at other countries -- canada, australia, u.k., germany, japan, the nordics, others, progressive governments, conservative governments -- they're all lean anything and have been leaning in on leave. but we're way behind. they all recognize that paid leave is good economic policy and good family policy. they know it is essential to have thriving businesses and flexible workplaces. these aren't mutually exclusive. these are inextricably intertwined and mutually reinforcing. so why can't we figure it out here in the u.s.? why are we making people choose between the job that they need and the family that they love? why aren't we giving people more tools to be attentive parents and productive employees? and how can we say that we continue to be for family values when so many people have to jeopardize their economic security to take a few weeks off to have a kid? that is not simply -- this issue is not simply a matter of doing the right thing, it's also an important strategy for reducing labor force participation. every first friday of the month the most frequently asked question i get, what can you do, tom, to increase labor force participation? let's talk about paid leave, and let's compare the united states with canada. the labor force participation rate of women ages 25-54 in the year 2000 in the u.s. and qanta was virtually -- canada was virtually identical. today canada is ahead of us by roughly eight percentage points in large measure because they have generous paid leave laws, and they provide access to affordable childcare. if we had simply kept pace with canada over these years, we would have 5.5 million more women in the work force. the innovation economy would be enriched by this reservoir of human capital. sectors that have serious gender gaps like the silicon valley, wall street and elsewhere would have additional talent to tap. i said before america works beth when we feel the full -- field a full team, and there's a lot of female talent on the bench, and that's not right. and here's the rub. when you get those 5.5 million more women off the bench and into the game, we increase gdp by an estimated 3.5% which translates to more than $500 billion of additional economic activity. so we're essentially, by our inaction, leaving significant amounts of money on the table because we're not leading on leave. earlier this summer the president convened a summit on working families, and this is what he said. at a time when women are nearly half our work force and primary breadwinners in more families than ever before. anything that makes life harder for women makes life harder for families and children. when women suck steed -- succeed, america succeeds. and there's no such thing as a women's issue. this is family issue and an american issue. so the bottom line is for the good of our families and the strength of our economy, we need to lead on leave. and you know what? we can't simply leave talent on the bench. we need to cultivate talent which brings me to another critical step in our stairway to shared prosperity, and that is the issue of skills. just as we need to invest in our physical infrastructure and in our transportation infrastructure, we need to invest in our human capital infrastructure. we built the railroad or system, we built the internet, and just as we've done that, we need to have a skills ecosystem that both meets the needs of our economy and opens up frontiers for new growth. now, there are two very important pieces of good news in this area. first of all, there are millions of good middle class jobs available for the taking right now, and opportunities are growing. many of them require less than a college degree, and although they tend to require more than a high school degree. and everywhere i go, my life is groundhog day. i have the same conversation with employers. and it's a good conversation. this is what they tell me. tom, you know what? i'm bullish about america. i want to grow my business. might be manufacturing, might be health care, might be i.t., whatever it is, i want to grow my business. and my biggest challenge is i need to make sure that we have a pipeline of skilled talent to make it happen. and there are opportunities across sectors. about a quarter of the companies in fortune magazine's list of the 100 fastest growing companies are in the energy sector. that means a treasure-trove of energy-related jobs, good middle class jobs, and we're working with the industry to give workers the training they need to fill those jobs. the same is true in other industries. i meet with utility ceos across this country. the utilities are in a process of dramatically expanding and modernizing the grid. and what that means is they will need more workers. and these jobs start at $50 thousand and above. i was -- $50,000 and above. i was with tom wheeler, the fcc chair, last week, and we can't expand broadband without middle class workers as well. that's an exciting development that creates opportunities. and the list goes on and on. we need upwards of 100,000 more computer support specialtists in the -- specialists in the coming years, 30,000 more surgical techs. these are jobs that can support family paying between $0-$70,000 $$40-$70,000 a year. and in many cases, you get the credentials at a community college, and then you build your way up the skills superhighway. and that is the second piece of good news that i want to share with you, is that we are in the middle of a remarkably exciting transformation in the way in which we prepare job seekers of all ages for the middle class jobs of today and tomorrow. we have gotten rid of what i've been calling the old train and pray model where we train widget makers, and we pray someone's hiring them. that's yesterday's paradigm. today's paradigm is we're focused on demand-driven or job-driven training. we're working more closely with industry, with our bureau of labor statistics than ever before to understand with precision the needs of employers in granular detail and then making sure that we design programs to meet those precise needs so that people can punch their picket to the -- their ticket to the middle class. when people ask, hey, tom, what do you do for a living? this is what i tell them, department of labor is match.com because we help make a connection, just the right fit, you know, between ready-to-work americans who want to punch their ticket to the middle class and jobs and employers who need and want to grow their business. and the secret sauce of this match.com is very frequently community colleges who provide that critical training that enable people to move up that ladder. and let me give you an example of this transformation at work. a couple weeks ago i met a guy named steve cap shaw who owns an advanced manufacturing business in western mass. and they supply critical component parts to the aerospace industry and in the medical device area. his entry level workers start at $20-$25 an hour and up with very generous benefits. and he described his experience during the great recession. because in the middle of the recovery, 2010, 2011, as america was struggling to add jobs, steve's company was actually turning away large amounts of business for one simple reason: he had a shortage of skilled workers. he did all the things that economistst suggest you should do, he raised wages, increased benefits, he did all of that, but he still couldn't recruit the right people. and as he listened to stories of stagnant wages and persistent unemployment, as steve said to me, he felt like he was living on another planet. those weren't my words, those were his words. and so dol as match.com sprang into action, and the middle skill manufacturing initiative was born in western massachusetts. this initiative is a joint venture of local manufacturing businesses, community colleges, the work force investment system which includes federal, state and local government working together. and our grant making was catalyzing partnerships like this in western massachusetts and in various growth sectors across the country. so as a result, dana graves, who's the father of twins who was stuck in that low wage job cycle during the great recession, successfully completed a training program and is now a very highly valued and well compensated employee of steve's company. this is a win for steve, it's a win for dana and his family, and it's a win for america. and this example is not a one off. we see this, we're helping to build these partnerships in communities across the country. we're not simply tinkering with the work force system, we're transforming it. just as president eisenhower built the interstate highway system, we are building a modernized, refurbished skills superhighway that enables workers to get good jobs and businesses to find good workers. we're doing this in partnership with businesses, with labor unions, with colleges, nonprofits, philanthropy, republicans and democrats in congress and our partners in state and local government. the new work force innovation and opportunity act, which was passed this summer in a strong bipartisan fashion, will enable us to continue this transformation. this superhighways has plenty of onramps and offramps. the destination is a middle class job, but there are many different routes to get there. community colleges are one well traveled path, but we're putting up the orange cones and doing the road work to make that ride much, much smoother. the obama administration has made a very bold investment of over -- of roughly $2 billion over the past four years to help community colleges develop can innovative training programs and curricula that help people launch middle class careers. technical training and apprenticeship is another important stretch of the highway, and we have been helped in this area by our partnerships with so many labor unions across the country who have figured this out for years and get it. .. education is the great equalizer. that continues to be the case today. whether it's a four year degree, associate degree, and online learning, on the job training that ibew certificate. i met a guy in san francisco who said, tom, i got the golden ticket. you ever seen willy wonka? i said not in a while. but he said, i got the goalie take it. because am a journeyman asked -- journeyman apprentice anakin anywhere in the united states and they can middle-class wage because i got the golden ticket. we want to make sure everybody has the golden ticket. is skills revolution is a critical step in the stairway t-shirt prosperity for millions of job seekers across america. i talk about a lot of steps and i've got two more i want to discuss before get your questions. i wanted it very briefly. the recent events at market basket i think it really illustrated the importance of worker voice. because you know, arthur t. great and if i were at the worker felt empowered, validate and respected. to him, worker voice was a threat to the company. it was an indispensable asset. and that's always been the case in the history of our country. worker voice can take so many forms. and one of most important of which is being part of a union. and the obama administration continues to be resolute that, when it comes to protecting collective bargaining rights in this country, we need to continue to protect these rights. and these rights have, frankly, come under withering attack in recent years. when i look at history as a guy who grew up in buffalo, new york, there is an absolutely direct relationship between the health of the middle-class and the health and vitality of the labor movement. absolutely. let's look at the data from the bureau of labor statistics. they report that last year, median weekly income for union members was $200 higher than for nonunion members. that ain't pocket change. and it doesn't even take into account superior benefits enjoyed by union members. i'd much rather work at the ford plant in louisville and make more money than the nissan plant in mississippi where i'm making less money and i have less protection. i grew up in buffalo, new york, that quintessential 21st century manufacturing town. and i saw firsthand that a job in a union shop was a surefire way to punch her ticket to the middle-class. and what i saw in buffalo and continue to see here is that unions don't succeed at the expense of business. they succeed in partnership with business. i was at the ford plant in louisville, kentucky. you know, back in the height of the recession, that plant had an existential crisis. they were down to under 1,000 employees. but they got together. the uaw and ford shared sacrifice, a good vision, and now they have shared prosperity. today, over 4,400 workers. and that doesn't include their supply chain. so i see that. i see partnership in action in so many places, whether it's the uaw, whether it's the seiu in new york with the health and hospital system, building a 21st century workforce, whether it's the folks in the teamsters and ups working together to make sure that ups competes in the global economy of 2014. we see partnership in action all, everywhere across this country. and we need to create space in america for new forms of collaboration between workers and their employers. one of the reasons i'm going to germany next week is to look at and study the works council model firsthand. i'm going to be spending the entire afternoon at volkswagen one day. and that works council model is a wonderful model that we should consider importing into this united states, because works council is all about co-determination. and you look at what the volkswagen leadership said about the works council model. they talk about this. and this isn't tom perez talking. this is the senior leadership of volkswagen. volkswagen considers its corporate culture of works council as a competitive advantage. i'll learn -- that is volkswagen speaking. and i think that they have a point. there are so many other models of success to give voice to workers. there are so many nonprofits emerging. one of the most recent recipients of one of the macarthur genius awards, ai-jen poo, who runs the national domestic workers alliance. and she has created remarkable opportunities to advocate on behalf of workers in low wage industries who are doing god's work in so many different ways, giving voice to marginalized workers. there are so many other opportunities to give this voice in so many different contexts. i was just recently at a meeting in vermont of the b corp movement. and they are remarkably forward-leaning in what they are trying to do in the b corp. movement, because they stand for the proposition that you can do good and do well. and not only do you do good and do well, you have to do good in order to do well. and so that is why i think worker voice is so important. and worker voice is a function of the last observation i'd like to make, which is simply the importance of leadership. leadership is an indispensible, indispensible, indispensible characteristic of how we will succeed in this country in bringing shared prosperity to everyone. it has to be leadership from washington. and president obama has demonstrated that, if congress isn't going to act, he will use his executive regulatory and convening authorities, his pen and his phone to provide that leadership. the phone has been ringing off the hook to dol on all of these initiatives. and the pen is running out of ink. and we build more pens so that we can provide more opportunity for people, whether it's home health workers, two million strong, who will be getting a raise, whether it's people working overtime, millions of whom may be eligible for raises when we enact the regulation on overtime. so we're going to continue to work on those areas. and the president will continue to exert leadership there. we have seen leadership at a state and local level as well, because we see so many states who are not waiting for congress to act on the minimum wage, paid leave and other issues of that nature, because they recognize that so many people need a raise. and they're not waiting for congress. and so, we see that leadership. and i see continued leadership from the labor movement and other nonprofit leaders who are helping, for instance, in the fast food movement, those are great examples of so many people working together. and my friends, i see people who, in the labor movement, they define success, not simply by the size of their membership, by the number of people they help. that's what shared prosperity is about. it's about helping your neighbor. and i see, in my work every day, every week, the inspiring leadership from people in the business community. employer after employer telling me that income inequality and wage stagnation are defining economic challenges of our time. and they are telling me that investments in their workers is an investment in the strength of their company. they're rejecting the false choices that are holding us back from shared prosperity, the simplistic notion that paying high wages undermines competitiveness, or collective bargaining hurts the economic growth, or that you can take care of your shareholders or your employees but not both. they understand that treating workers with dignity and respect isn't just a nice thing to do, it's good for your bottom line. the b corp. folks understood that. they see themselves as accountable, not simply to their shareholders, but to a broader universe of stakeholders. people who are in employee stock ownership plans see the same thing, a trillion dollars in that area. they understand that the high road is indeed the smart road. and they're taking that high road. the gap, for instance, has made a commitment to paying above the minimum wage. but they also have been leaders on pay equity and promotion of women. and, by the way, if you looked at the new york times last week, you would see that, you know, prospective employees are drawn to places like the gap. and they had a 24% increase in their applications since they announced their policies. and so, we see so many examples, whether it's the b corp. movement, whether it's aesops, whether it's individual corporations like gap and so many others, like the -- you see it in every single business model around, whether it's costco, whether it's the gap, whether it's so many others across this country, they understand that we've got to look long-term. i had one ceo who said to me, he was talking about a renegade shareholder who wasn't interested in thinking long-term. and this quote really stuck in my head. this renegade shareholder was saying, you know, i'd rather be rich than right. think about that. i'd rather be rich than right. this ceo was saying, no, i want to act long-term. and so, we're going to continue to look long-term as a nation, because that's what we have to do. and, you know, i want to leave you with a story about where we started, which is our friends from market basket. because they have done remarkable work. and they really have captured the imagination of the nation. they have done really a service. and they have demonstrated that you can do good and do well. and what we really need are more companies like market basket, more partnerships like the uaw and the ford motor company, etcetera, because these guys, they risked everything, because they believe that a market basket without arthur t. wasn't really a market basket, wasn't worth being part of. you know, people like cindy whalen, who started working there when she was 17, because she said the company was second family. you know, mark owens, 34 years there. and now his son is an assistant manager. and he talks about how mr. demoulas would start every day by emphasizing what he called our most precious customers. you know, chris sturzo, who will tell you that mr. demoulas always said, we're in the people business first and the grocery business second. mark lemieux talked to him about the time when the founder of the company came into his store the first day it opened. and mark said to him, thank you for trusting me to run one of your stores. and mr. demoulas grabbed him, and he said, mark, remember, it's our store. it's not my store. you know, and we can talk to all these folks because they're in the middle of the room here, along with kevin fioli and tom trainer and mark kettenbach, and one of their vendors, jim fatini, they're all here, because this is what we are about. they have showed that shared prosperity is indeed a reality in this country. we can do this. it's our store. just like it's our economy. it belongs to all of us. it's not functioning unless it works for everyone. and i want you -- i want to leave you, not simply with the words of their boss, arthur t., but with the words of another boss. his name is bruce springsteen, who said, you know what? nobody wins unless everybody wins. and i think we can get there as a nation. so thank you so much. [applause] >> if you could remain here and join me. we'll try to do some rapid fire questioning, okay. the unemployment rate has been falling in recent months. but how reflective is it, really, of the real economic situation? >> well, for people like katherine hackett, whom i met, she introduced the president at one of the long-term unemployed events. she had been unemployed for three years. she has a job now. so it's a reality for her. she's punched her ticket again to the middle class. and 10.3 million workers are, indeed, back at work. but all too many other people, as i described in my remarks, are still struggling. too many long-term unemployed, for instance, although the figures are getting better. and too many people who are working hard and haven't had a raise in years. and that's really the challenge for us. we're moving in the right direction. but what we have to do is pick up the pace of growth and make sure that the prosperity that comes with growth is shared by everyone. >> how happy are you with the quality of the jobs created during this recovery? >> well, i've heard some who have said that this recovery has been a low-wage recovery. if you actually look -- and i see that the commissioner of our bureau of labor statistics here, if you look at the last year, for instance, the area that had the most growth in jobs was business and professional services. over 700,000, if my memory serves me. now these are -- you know, the majority of these jobs are accountants and architects, jobs that pay quite well. so we've seen immense growth there. low wage jobs tend to be the first jobs to be lost. and they have come back as well. and what we need to do is work on these jobs that are the middle class, middle skill jobs. and that's why our skills agenda and our voice agenda and all these other things that i outlined, i think they can lead to prosperity across the board. >> sir, you said you haven't given up the push to revive emergency unemployment benefits. at this late stage in the recovery, how many weeks of benefits do you think are the right amount for unemployed job seekers? >> well, i haven't given up the fight. and i applaud the efforts of jack reed, senator heller from nevada, senator collins from maine. it's been a bipartisan effort in the senate. and that's because, once again, this issue is a bipartisan issue, historically. and never in the history of our nation has congress, with unemployment -- long-term unemployment rates as high as they were in december of last year, failed to extend emergency unemployment compensation. never, that is, until last december. and i sure wish that leader boehner would do what i do, which is meet with the long-term unemployed, as i try to do about every three months. because when you understand the human face of this, you understand that we need to extend these benefits, because it's a lifeline for folks. it's not a lifestyle. >> the obama administration hasn't been able to push through an increase in the minimum wage so far. is there any reason to think that will change after the midterms? or are we in for two more years of grinding gridlock? >> well, i sure don't have a crystal ball on that. but i sure can tell you that the american people want results. and i worked in local government, and i worked in state government. and what i liked about working in local government and state government was we could deliver results. we got things done. that's what the president wants to do. he wants to work with anyone and everyone on immigration reform, transportation infrastructure, minimum wage, any of these issues. and i think you continue to ignore the will and needs of the american voter at your peril. and so, we're going to continue to work with anyone and everyone across an ideological spectrum who is interested and willing to come up with commonsense middle ground. principle compromise is not a dirty word, for me or for this president. but regrettably, for some, it's a talking point in a campaign. >> silicon valley business leaders are demanding immigration reform because they say there aren't enough workers to fill the demand for high tech engineers. what steps are you taking to make certain that america remains a leader in the tech field? >> well, i've spent a lot of time with folks in the silicon valley. and actually, the silicon valley leadership group just released about a week ago a book that they have with essays from about 20 different leaders across the ideological spectrum. and i had the privilege of having one of those pieces. i totally -- what i love about immigration reform, and this is not new, is that the support is bipartisan. i hear from labor unions, we need immigration reform. i hear from the silicon valley, we need immigration reform. i hear from faith groups, even, you know, everybody, that we need immigration reform. and that's what it was like when i worked for senator kennedy. we did 80 amendments or so in the committee when i worked for him. and i need one hand to count the number of party line votes, because this has never been a partisan issue. and the stories that i hear from both the silicon valley, from people whose families have been broken up, they just tear your heart out. and we can do better. and that's why we're going to continue to advocate. and the president isn't waiting. and that's why he's going to continue to take aggressive executive action. but there is no substitute for a bill, because we can't help everyone by executive action. >> what ideas -- and i know we're trying to go through rapid fire q & a. what ideas do you have to fix detroit, the rust belt, and other cities that haven't been able to retool or rebuild in the present day? >> well we actually have a detroit taskforce. and we've been out there as a cabinet. i think some of the most vexing challenges confronting america are challenges that, for their successful and sustainable resolution, require unprecedented levels of interagency collaboration and stove pipe implosion. and that's why we have been working together as a cabinet in detroit like never before. but one of the biggest challenges, for instance, that they have there, is they don't have a regional transit authority. and so, you know, think about it. we're trying to bring more jobs back into detroit. and we've been successful thus far, although we need to pick up the pace. but so many of the jobs are out in the suburbs. and, if you can't get there, how can you work there? and so, we're working together on transportation issues. we're working on the skills infrastructure. because so many people are not trained for the jobs of today and tomorrow. we're working to build a seamless structure of education from cradle to grave that will enable people to be prepared for those jobs. and so, those are examples of things that we continue to do. and i think the stove pipe implosion is going to help not only detroit, but many other cities. >> if governor scott walker wins another term on november 4th, it means he will have successfully taken on the public employee unions. will that encourage other governors, especially republican ones, to do the same in their states? what will that mean for public employee unions? >> well, i'm not going to speculate on who's going to win elections on november the 4th. you know, every state has the ability to enact laws in the labor context. i think the efforts that took place in wisconsin and elsewhere were not in the best interest of workers. and you watched as states like ohio, you saw remarkable and successful pushback against efforts to limit voice. i think voice is an indispensible part of shared prosperity. and whether it's labor unions, collective bargaining, supporting works councils, supporting organizations like the domestic workers alliance, whether it's supporting b corps., whether it's supporting aesops, the more we can do to support voice in every way, shape or form, the more we can do to build shared prosperity. >> a little personal. what was your first job? and how did it shape your life? >> well, growing up in buffalo, new york, my first jobs -- i had three paper routes as a teenager, because we had -- we used to have a morning paper, jerry, you may recall, the courier express. and i had that. i shagged golf balls at a driving range, with a helmet. some people thought maybe, as they watched me, i didn't have a helmet on. and then i worked on the back of a trash truck. i worked at sears for a number of years. and all those jobs taught me the dignity of work and the value of whatever job you're at, you give your best and you work your hardest. >> now, to your next job, maybe. attorney general holder has been a lightning rod throughout his tenure at the justice department. why is that? and what can his successor do to prevent becoming a lightning rod? >> well, eric holder stood up for voting rights. eric holder stood up for commonsense criminal justice reform. eric holder ended up working on issues like reducing the crackpot of disparity in a bipartisan fashion with folks in congress. and these are many of the defining issues of our day. and whenever you're going to work on some of these defining issues of our day, you will have folks who oppose you. i do not believe, as we prepare to celebrate the 50th anniversary of bloody sunday, i don't believe that the enduring voting issue fifty years later is in-person voter fraud. i don't believe that, because i did these cases when i was over there. and that is a phantom problem. and when eric holder says things like that, people disagree with him. and i applaud his candor and the movement that they have done in that area. >> what should be the justice department's top priorities? >> i have not studied that issue since i was at the department of labor. and i can tell you, the department of labor's priorities should be putting people back to work, continuing the pace of growth, and making sure we have shared prosperity. >> we do have two more in the area of possible next job. so if you wouldn't mind? >> i'm talking about my day job here. >> attorney general holder has said he won't send journalists to jail for doing their job, suggesting that new york times reporter james risen is unlikely to spend time behind bars. specifically, he said at a recent interview with msnbc, when asked about mr. risen, i stand by what i have said. if a reporter is doing that which he or she does as a reporter, no reporter is going to jail as long as i am attorney general. would you maintain that position, should you happen to become attorney general? or even if not, do you support that position? >> again, my singular focus is on the job of being at the department of labor. and i know the attorney general very much values the role of the press as the fourth branch of government. remember, he served as the deputy attorney general under janet reno, and often participated with her in her weekly conferences, whether it was -- there was good news, bad news, or indifferent, she was out there. and he was often there with her in those press briefings, because he understands the critical importance of the press in so many aspects of our life. >> we'll return to the labor department for a few questions. are employers doing their part to train their own workers? or has on the job training disappeared? >> oh, i think one of the biggest aspects and one of the most exciting aspects of the transformation in our workforce system that we're seeing is the remarkable level of employer engagement in what we're doing. we cannot succeed, in that the advanced manufacturing initiative i described in western massachusetts, the credentials that people are getting are designed by the industry. they are with the input of the industry. and so, when you hire someone, you know what you're getting. that level of employer engagement is one of the lynchpins of our transformation. and the reason it is, is because too many employers were telling me that they were hiring folks, and they had a credential, but they didn't know what was behind it. now that they're actively engaged in the development of that credential, they got skin in the game. and they understand it. and, as a result, they can do so much more. >> union strength and influence continues to decline in this country. so have a number of factors related to worker security and satisfaction. how do we bring about -- how do we bring back protections and fair play and benefits -- sorry. how do we bring back protections and fair pay and benefits to workers in this area of corporate rights in diminishing worker esteem, according to this questioner? >> sure. well, we start out by studying the experience, once again, of our neighbors to the north. the new york times had a story, i believe april or so of this year, about how the middle class in the united states is not faring as well as the middle class elsewhere. and they used canada as one example. and it's, for me, as i studied this issue, why is the middle class faring better in canada? their union density is over twice of what the union density is here in america. i think it's about 26% versus 11% and change here in the united states. you look at places like germany, where you've got very low youth unemployment, very robust economy. and you have robust union density. and so, again, it gets back to this issue of voice. we need to make sure that we have multiple mechanisms to give workers a level playing field. and when we do that, as volkswagen and so many others have demonstrated, it works to the benefit of workers, employers and communities alike. >> how can we close the wage gap without collective bargaining? >> well, as i said, i think collective bargaining is a very important part of the mix here. the health of the middle class and the strength of the union movement, when you study history, go hand in hand. the greatest generation, as tom brokaw used to talk about, well they not only defended our nation and really defended democracy, but when they came back to the united states, what they ended up doing was, you know, they were our laborers and forepeople. and i use the word forepeople instead of foremen. there were foremen and forewomen. and they were the folks who helped accelerate the entry of the united states into the middle class. so that greatest generation wasn't simply great on the battlefield, they were great in the workplace. and one of their major accomplishments was that they helped grow the middle class through the importance of collective bargaining, through standing up for workers. and again, we see so many examples, whether it's costco -- and if you bought a thousand dollars worth of costco stock, you know, 15 years ago, you'd have like $15,000 dollars now. they've outperformed the s & p 500 index significantly. you know, other companies, similar examples, across every business model. you know, airlines. when i go to bwi airport, you know, the southwest airlines, they actually pay their baggage handlers a fair wage. you go up i-95 to newark, and all too many of them, as a result of a decision by some of the legacy carriers, they're making the minimum wage. and i was up there talking to them with corey booker a few months back. that doesn't have to be that way. again, you know, low wages are a choice. they're not a necessity. and there are so many examples of that. >> thank you. we are almost out of time. but before asking the last question, we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first of all -- one minute. we just have a little issue here. we'll get you the mug later. okay. first of all, i'd like to remind you about two upcoming speaker'' luncheons. on october 21, tomorrow, scott blackmun, president and ceo of the u.s. olympic committee. and on november 7th, robert mcdonald, secretary of veteran'' affairs. i would like to present you with our traditional mug, and we've done it so that it is lightweight and easily portable, just in case you need to move offices. so either way, it will be good. [laughter] >> and less than $20 dollars. >> and less than $20 dollars. next i'd like to ask you the last question. can the labor department do anything about the employment situation of journalists? and we have a short time for you to do that. [laughter] >> there are few things that keep me up at night more than the employment situation of journalists. so what we do is we hire more journalists so that they can tell our story. journalists, like so many others, have similar challenges. and i hope that you continue to do the great work that you are doing to shine a light. because as i said, when i signed your book, the privilege of signing your book earlier today, you are the fourth branch of government. thank you for your time. [applause] >> thank you for coming today. we are adjourned. >> thanks so much [inaudible conversations] >> c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and key public policy fans. .. -- policy events. .. [inaudible] >> again come alive today at the center for american progress. we will be hearing about postsecondary education and how states can find that education. again we will be hearing from the education undersecretary ted mitchell as well as the provost university of south florida and talking about state investment and public colleges and universities. we heard they are running a little bit behind this morning so we are going to take this opportunity to take a look at the cannes us senate race while things get underway. that race where an nbc poll shows independent with a one-point lead over republican senate pat roberts over the lead that mr. gorman had later thishc month. we will bring you back to the education discussion as soon as it begins.ntil the >> campaign 2148 days until the election. can a look at the kansas senate race joined by steve who is ther political correspondent for the kansas city star.e, thank y fori thanks for joining us this morning in the race between the incumbent pat robertson to be independent greg orman. where do things stand now?guest: >> guest: it is still a close race. at the polls suggest that orman might have the lead of a point or two, but obviously, that is within the margin of error in the polls out here. but a very, very tight race. there is no question about it. >> host: last week the pat robertson campaign bringing in the big guns, bringing in mitt romney -- who else has come in to campaign for the senator? >> guest: at this point about half the senate has been here to campaign for pat roberts. he said john mccain here, rand paul, ted cruz, just one senator after another. ted coburn from oklahoma has been here for him. today, as you just mentioned, mitt romney will be here in a kansas city area suburb just on the kansas side. and i think he will draw a pretty good crowd. mitt romney obviously still a big name in american politics and that's why roberts is bringing him out here. so it will be fun to see what happens. >> host: what has to get out the vote effort and mike for the roberts campaign and the orman campaign? he is an independent, so who does he rely on if the democratic party isn't there for him necessarily? >> guest: that is one of the big questions that surround this campaign as we we headed down toward election day, who does greg orman count on to get the vote out. he doesn't have very much of a get out the vote at least in the traditional sense that we judge these things now in american politics. as you point out, he he's an independent. the democrats are welcome to help him on that front. they don't want to be caught helping greg orman were further tightened to the democratic party. that's been one of the main arguments in the campaign from the roberts side which is that orman is a liberal democrat. he's a democrat who has been hiding behind the cloak of being an independent candidate. so they really want to avoid that kind of association. succumb a orman is from what we can tell pretty much on his own and it comes to getting the vote out. and you wonder how that will affect him read robert will have the advantage of having a long-established republican machine behind him and very well known for the get out the vote at practice. they effort at us. they helped sam brownback so much four years ago. very well should help him again this time around. so, roberts has a bank on that kind of support and orman doesn't have that kind of machine behind him and you wonder how that's going to affect the final vote on election day. >> host: you also have a world series going on coming back again in the city. is there any interference, is that a distraction in terms of the things like getting airtime for tv spots, political ads and things like that? >> guest: if you watch the world series here anyways you're seeing lots of bad for orman and roberts. i don't think there's been any impact at all. we have noticed some research that has been done that suggests that if you have a successful home team in any sport that going forward to election day how big of a factor that is i doubt that there is research to suggest there is that kind of tie going into election day. >> host: one of the pieces next week. steve speaking with an political correspondent with the kansas city star and he is on twitter to follow the action there in the senate race in kansas. thanks for joining us. >> guest: thanks for having me. now a discussion for post secondary education. introductions underway at the center for american progress. >> -- going to college. however, the college going rate for low-income students has slowed. the last decade despite the significant investment in the federal government and things like paul grant and the opportunity tax credit, the additional investment of the pell grant a loan total more than $50 billion. but a federal investment has not been sufficient because during the same period the states were descended staying in higher education. since the onset of the great recession, 38 states decreased the amount of direct funding to public colleges. eight states and gray on the sides had natural changes in funding. just four states in orange increased the amount of direct funding to public colleges. i found it interesting that the states that increased the amount of direct funding for the public higher education were safe at north dakota, wyoming, illinois and west virginia. we know that what has been happening in north dakota, additional tax revenues through energy exploitation but they didn't have to reinvest in the higher education, but they did anyway. all 50 states decreased the revenue from the state government reflecting the blue in the charge. and 47 states in 47 states increased their reliance on tuition revenues from students and families in orange. so despite the increase in funding, the share of the revenue from state governments declined in all but three states greater north dakota again, connecticut and name increasing the reliance on tuition fees. at all income levels and both two-year and four-year institutions, the states that got cut the most in orange charge the highest net price and hire net price means greater borrowing entire levels of debt which diminish education access. and the cuts were focused on the community colleges. which which saw the moment increases by 20% while enrollment at public four-year colleges increased by only 10.6% so spending per student has been cut in 45 states compared to 39 states for a public four-year college. we have called for a new compact between the state and federal governments to revitalize the state funding in public colleges. the public qualified project calls for states to implement for key elements, create reliable funding sources for public higher education, make the college affordable particularly for the low-income students, improve performance and remove the barriers. states that qualify and wish to participate in the compact would receive funding based on a formula that takes into consideration the number of veterans and the number of coverage recipients enrolled. they graduate and do so without that. it's my pleasure to introduce the executive vice president of the center for american progress. karl manages the process across the areas addressed by the center for american progress and is a key member of the executive team. before coming here, we worked together at the u.s. department of education where she was the assistant secretary for planning, evaluation and policy development. in that position, she led the department policy and budget development activities, served as a senior adviser to the advisor to the secretary arnie duncan. prior to coming to the department of education, she served as the general counsel and deputy staff director for the late senator edward kennedy as chairman of the health education and labor and pensions committee. she also previously worked at the center for american progress as the associate director of domestic policy and in the senate as chief counsel and senior policy adviser to the former senator just a number to come -- senator bingham. she holds a university degree from texas school of law and masters degree in public affairs from the lyndon b. johnson school of public affairs. pleasecome up. thank you. >> i'm going to start by introducing the panel and a dive right into the discussion. first on my right we have ted mitchell has the undersecretary of the u.s. department of education. he served in this post since the confirmation by the u.s. senate earlier this year. in this role, he oversees policy programs and activities related to post secondary education, career and technical education, adult and federal student aid. ted is charged with planning and policy responsibility to implement the president's goal for the u.s. to have the best educated and most competitive workforce in the world as it is measured by the proportion of college graduates i think year 2020. next we have david bean who serves as the senior vice president for government relations and policy analysis at the american association of community colleges. in and this will redirect the national advocacy efforts for the nation closer to both hundred community colleges and their students. and we are happy to have david here today to speak about the association's strategic plan to boost as much as 50% the number of degrees and credentials awarded at the institutions by 2020. next, we have sarah odella who is the policy director for the generation progress and advocacy organization during the millennial generation and the progressive policy solutions. serra's sarah's work focuses on ensuring that the next generation of americans have access to an affordable and high-quality education. she will discuss how the policy proposals have a potential to lift millennialist towards a great economic prosperity. sarah was the director of domestic policy advocates of advocates for youth. and finally, we have rob wilcox provost and executive vice president for the university of south florida system. the university of south florida is the ninth largest university in the united states serving more than 45,000 students. the university of florida has made significant strides on the student completion for the student success task force it has closed the graduation gaps across the demographic groups while raising a percentage of low-income students enrolled. achieving increases in both access and great completion. he formerly held leadership and academic positions at the university of south florida st. petersburg at the university of houston, the university of memphis and hofstra university. so, with that api will start with ted and ask you to talk about the department of education thinking about the issue of accessing the stronger partnerships in the states so they continue to invest in the public. >> thanks for having all of us. it's great to be here. as you noted there have been systematic investments throughout the great recession. i think it is critically important as economies improve for us to remind our partners at the state level that where they are is not okay. taking what was a fairly balanced three party compact between the states and families and federal government and on balancing that in a way that you've shown really does disadvantaged students that we are most concerned that have access to it through college needs to change dramatically. so as we all know we have for the last several years opportunities for the federal government and states to work together on many of the lines of contact that we are discussing here this morning. and so the state higher performance fund that we would seek to reward states that create stable funding platforms that make sure that their commitment to low income students remain in place and that would also move states towards a more performance-based budget overall. we want to continue to have those conversations in aligning the federal resources with the state's willingness to fund higher education and make that funding centrally available to low-income and middle-income families who we need to get into college and across the finish line if we are going to meet the president's goal and the moral imperative of providing the opportunities and access to the middle-class for families across the country. >> in the face of the cut that your institution has been able to make strides in terms of completion can you talk a little bit about how you are able to do that? we are calling for greater state investment but also changes in policies that the institutional and the state level but hopefully bring down costs that increase outcomes and it seems like you've done the latter. >> first, thank you most particularly for including the universities and colleges on the panel. i'm thrilled to be here with policy leaders. we are the ones that have to implement that policy. and that sometimes comes with challenges. what's interesting about the university and santa florida as you pointed out are the institutions but most particularly the top 50 research universities public or private in the united states and i mention that because in all of the research universities we lose sight of the focus and enhancing the student success. over the past six years, we have seen an 8% increase or eight-point increase in the retention rate. a 15% increase in our six year freshman graduation rates that only tells a part of the story because a large number of students entering the university come to us as transfer students as well. we have also seen an increase in the graduation rate from 60% to 68% in four years in the recent past so we are pleased in the direction that we are moving and we are not yet satisfied. so it really has lifted all of the students in terms of the demographic profile and the recipients from 19% to 41%. that is as much i writing a product of the economic gains as any particular effort on our part to recruit lower income or middle income students. but we know those are the ones that are most significantly impacted by the state's declining investment and efforts to increase tuition to help offset those. >> what steps did you take to increase the level of completion that you are seeing? >> first and foremost, we raised expectations and we recognize it is everyone's responsibility that we have raised expectations with regards to the coverage compared to the readiness whether the students are coming to us through the play k-12 community directly or through the colleges and state colleges. we have raised expectations with regards to student engagement area there were a number of initiatives on campus and we know that while that adds to the attendance, we've implemented to some of initiatives to offset the impact of that requirement because we know full well the students that engage fully in life on campus are more likely going to be retained and progress towards regulation. our shift has been from a focus on inputs to the throughput and output. at the same time, we thought we had invested in a broad variety of ways and enhancing student support, financial support, academics support, structures into scaffolding to students experience because again, with so many students that are first in their family, they don't have the privilege of a network at home to help guide them through what is sometimes a complex and even confusing pathway to completion. and we don't stop at completion. today, our focus is on placement as well. placing our students in high skilled and high paid jobs as well as providing them the support necessary to progress to graduate school or to professional programs if that is the path that they are pursuing. >> david cohen at the community college level, as the report points out community college is gradually hit harder in many ways and four year institutions -- so you are educating more students than ever, fewer investments from the state level. do you see your institution is making the kind of choices that were mentioned in terms of investing in things that help children and students get to graduation and having to reallocate funding or how are those institutions dealing with it? >> that is a good question. we should start with the reality into the specific changes which is the fact that the colleges educate students for less cost than the other sectors of higher education on a per student basis. what we saw in the recession is what we call a double whammy as it were when we had the cuts in funding as your report points out along with dramatically increased enrollments. 22% increase in enrollment over the three highest years in the recession which has slowly tapered off. so, starting with the very limited amount of resources or the relatively small amount of resources the coaches have come and there is an ongoing tension i think it's fair to say between the desire of the presidency and the deans on campus to provide as much information as they possibly can. that is faculty members in the classroom whether they are full-time or adjunct versus the kind of rap and services that you're asking about and ralph just talked about which all the research shows is very important and critical to getting more students to graduate and we have to say with all of the attention that has been placed on the need for our colleges to graduate more students, progress in that area is stubborn to come by. we are dealing with low income students and of course higher percentages of the student population from the lower to the income as it was the case ten years ago with a very disturbing trend on a number of different ways so we have low income students and correlating with that is the fact that they are not -- most of them in fact prepared to do college work. when i see that by virtue of the fact more than 60% of the students are at least tested to be needing some remedial work so you start at the low income relatively unprepared population and you want to get to graduation and of course as you run though and the audience knows it was a strong correlation between income and propensity to graduate. so what the colleges would like to do is have the money to provide the ancillary services that help the students get to graduation and the counseling they need committee academic enrichment services they need, the further advising in terms of their personal lives because the president's point out to us constantly you are not just dealing with education for a lot of students that these are people but as you were mentioning the students don't necessarily have models of college going in their own families, so finding their way in an environment that isn't natural for other students of the students of finding a way to triage these areas at the time but of course resources are less available than the whole have been into the time we've responded to president obama's challenge to graduate more students and it is not of course unique has been a difficult needle to thread for a lot of our colleges but having said that, one thing i do feel very passionate and positive about is the fact that without a doubt, the emphasis on completion and the need to get students to maintain an educational credential is dramatically enhanced from what it was even five years ago. no community college presidents can get away with having at minimum an elevator speech about what the colleges doing in terms of working on completion and all that implies about the commitment underneath that across the campus to get students to graduate while it requires the leadership to increase graduation and get more students to complete the program there has to be investment across the campus and that includes the faculty which traditionally has not had the same incentive they might have needed to take individual responsibility for getting students to get up on the podium in the stage of the graduation ceremony and get that. >> what our young people giving to advocate for themselves in this regard and is the focus are they directing their energy towards the policy leaders to get increased investment in public institutions or are they focused on the price versus quality or completion aspects of the issue? >> young people are getting engaged in this issue in various ways. they are directly targeting their state legislators to say you need to invest in it and they are targeting members of congress. we have so many that will go on the floor into savings like i painted houses over the summer to pay for my college tuition and then we kind of laugh at the idea of the minimum wage being able to pay for a whole year of anything in college. young people are calling up members and they say wait a minute you have a better had a better deal when it comes to accessing college than we do. and they are speaking about the other social services needed for people when they are in school so if you look at the millennial generation yes we are the most diverse. 40% of us are young people of color but also 15% of us were not worn in the united states and so when you see young people calling for a resource centers when we have young people people that are first in the generation and have had to do things their entire life like translate into act as a service in the community we are waiting to see a whole wraparound support so that they can academically do well but also socially take care of themselves and their families so they can succeed in school. 6% of the generation identifies and those are things that are needed so that young people can do well academically and they've been doing an amazing job calling out elected and also pokes at the university system to say here's what we need to succeed as well. >> we call for a major investment for the states to increase their investments into the administration called for similar programs but given the level of activity in congress that might not have happen in the short term i hope it will but it doesn't work the others you have at the federal level to address these issues? >> it's the conversation of the conversation we are having. what can we be doing and i think as your report is doing it starts to change the conversation which is important but there are other things we can be
i might ask anybody in this audience to stand up if they feel like they would like to live next to someone that's been released directly from segregation into the street and i'm pretty sure people are going to stay in their chairs. what we were able to do, in 2012 we released 140 directly into the street. in 2014 we released two so far. and the other area i was challenged by the governor was take a look at everyone else in administrative segregation and see if you can determine the numbers of those that should be released. we've done that. that was started by the executive director and continued by me. in january of 2011, we had 1,451 in admin seg, as it's called. in january of 2014, we had 597. in a sense i don't feel i'm replacing mr. clements. i feel i'm fulfilling his vision. that's what we're doing in colorado. i believe that nobody should be released directly to the community. and some of the things that we're doing are some that all can be doing. i don't disagree with anything mr. samuels said. i respect him. i have known him for quite some time. working with the association of the state correctional administrators association we've done a lot of work and best practices. let me throw some things out there as i quickly end as i'm running out of time. for some reason we seem to think that for admin seg someone is in a cell 23 hours a day. who defines that? there's probably some obscure court case that mandates that's what happens? why isn't it 212 -- why isn't it 22 hours a day? how about 20 hours a day? how about 18 hours a day or they start at 23 and work their way down to 10? that's one thing we're going to be doing. it's been automatic for the most part that someone on death row is going to stay in administrative segregation until they're put to death. and as we know a person spends many years and some are found innocent and released, and we're going to be changing our policy on that and giving them the opportunity to get outside of their cells. where we're going to end up in colorado is that only the extreme violent, and that's a small handful about all that we're talking about, are going to be those that remain in administrative segregation. but even them, that doesn't mean we give up on them. it means we continue to find a solution for these problems because as i sat in that cell for over 20 hours, my response was this isn't a way to treat an american. it's not a way that the state should be treating someone. it's not a way this nation should be treating someone and internationally it's not a way to be treating someone. this is receiving the right amount of attention now at the right time and i think it's time we move this forward. thank you. >> thanks, mr. raemisch. and i might say to those gathered here, a roll call vote just started and so some of my colleagues will leave to vote. we'll try to keep the hearing going. miss kerman? >> chairman durbin, ranking member cruz, and distinguished members of this committee, thank you for having me here to address this important issue. i spent 13 months as a prisoner in the federal system. if you're familiar with my book "orange is the new black," you know that i was never held in an isolation unit. the longest amount of time i was placed alone in a holding cell was four hours, and i was ready to climb the walls of that small room by the end of that. i am here today to talk specifically about the impact of solitary confinement on women in american prisons, jails, and detention centers. women are the fastest growing segment of the criminal justice system and their families and communities are increasingly affected by what happens behind bars. at least 63% of women in prison are there for a nonviolent offense. however, some of the factors that contribute to these women's incarceration can also end up landing them in solitary confinement. during my first hours of incarceration, warnings about solitary or the shu came from both prisoners and staff very quickly. and very minor infractions could send you to the shu. they can then keep you there as long as they want under whatever conditions they choose. unlike the normal hive like communities of prison, 24-hour lockdown leaves you in a 6 x 8 cell for weeks or months or even years, and this is unproductive for individuals, for prison institutions, and the outside communities to which 97% of all prisoners return. several factors make women's experience in incarceration and solitary different from men's. women in prison are much more likely than men to suffer from mental illness which makes being put into solitary confinement much more likely and much more damaging. jeanne, who like the majority of women prisoners had a history of mental illness, and 75% of women in prison do. she spent the first year of her six-year sentence in solitary confinement. you have her full written statement. i will share some of her words with you. i spent three-quarters of my time on a bunk with the blanket over my head in the fetal position rocking back and forth for comfort. i tried meditating to no avail. i can separate body from mind with my disassociative disorder. i cried a lot, not for me but for my kids. i laughed inappropriately. i got angry at myself, angry at those who abused me and led me to this life of addiction. i felt ashamed because i let others abuse my body because i felt i deserved it. i felt sorry i was born. i felt sorry for all the hurt that i caused, but most of all i felt sorry that there wasn't a rope to kill myself because every day was worse than the last. solitary is also misused as a threat to intimidate and silence women who are being sexually abused by staff, which is a widespread problem in prisons, jails, and detention centers that house women. early in my sentence, a woman who had done a lot of time told me about a friend of hers who had been sexually abused by a guard at danbury. she told me they had her in the shu for months during the s.i.s. investigation. they shot her full of psych drugs. she blew up like a balloon. when they finally let her out, she was a zombie. they do not play here. there are egregious examples of solitary confinement being used by prison officials to hide horrific systemic sexual abuse under their watch. the terrible threat of isolation makes women afraid to report abuse and serves as a powerful disincentive to ask for help or justice. and, finally, solitary has a devastating effect on families and children of women prisoners. for health and safety, pregnant women should never be placed in solitary, and yet this is allowed in prisons throughout the u.s. most women in prison are mothers. a child's need to see and hold his or her mother is one of the most basic human needs, yet visitation for prisoners in solitary is extremely limited and often all visitation privileges are revoked. isolation should only be used when a prisoner is a threat to her own safety or that of others, not when pregnant or suffering mental illness or for reporting abuse. i urge that the federal bureau of prisons in its assessment of solitary confinement practices take action to limit the use of solitary on women. they should visit as many women's institutions as possible, fcis like tallahassee and dublin, and they should include confidential discussions with the women incarcerated in those facilities. last week my home state of new york announced significant solitary reforms, including prohibition of placing pregnant women in solitary and the bureau of prisons and other states should also embrace those kinds of comprehensive reforms. thank you for the opportunity to testify and to help the subcommittee address this very significant issue. i'm hopeful it will mark the next step in urgently needed long-term oversight and reform. >> thank you, miss kerman. as i said, i have reviewed the testimoy of all the members of this panel. it is extraordinary, and i don't want to miss it. so we're going to take a ten-minute recess and let us race over to the floor and back. so if you could just hang around for a few more minutes, we'll be back. this committee will stand in recess for ten minutes. this hearing of the subcommittee will resume. it would have been ten minutes except the senate train broke down. we had to walk over to the capitol and get back, so mr. deroche, please proceed. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman, ranking member cruz, members of the committee. thank you for revisiting this pressing issue. changing the culture in the prisons will change the culture in our cities and our states. the disproportionate and arbitrary use of solitary confinement is not only immoral, it is a missed opportunity to break the cycle of crime. this approach does not increase public safety and is contrary to justice fellowship's goals for the criminal justice system, accountability and restoration. teaching people to become good citizens rather than just good prisoners is a charge entrusted to the correctional officers by the taxpayers. skilled wardens understand that ensuring prisoners become responsible and productive members of society at large is paramount to the safety of our communities, whether inside or outside of the prison walls. part of creating safe communities inside prisons includes removing prisoners, individuals who violate societal norms by placing themselves or others at rick. but skilled wardens also understand that the removal process needs to be temporary and what is being asked of the prisoner should be available to them and also achievable. many in this room know that justice fellowships founder chuck colson saw his power and pride crumble when he left being president nixon's counsel to becoming a federal prisoner. but upon his release from prison, his work actually started touring a solitary confinement unit in walla walla prison in 1979, and that -- out of that meeting, senators, is where justice fellowship was founded. and i'm also grateful to you, mr. chairman, and ranking member cruz, for your support as has been mentioned of co-sponsoring the smarter sentencing act. and i believe that mr. colson if he were alive today would applaud your work in that area. solitary confinement, in theory is for the worst of the worst of the prisoners. however, data says otherwise. case in point is in illinois where a study was conducted and found that 85% of the prisoners were sent to disciplinary segregation for minor rule violations. prisoners in these circumstances too often do not have their cases individually reviewed and looked at from oversight. there was an analogy given earlier about police officers, when they're struck or other things. but it seems that the justice system does a much greater job on the outside of the walls of having accountability and individual review than segregation has had historically. and when it comes to the discussion about mental illness, regretfully our family, friends, and neighbors suffering from mental illness are too often punished rather than treated. and i would like to share the story of a man named kevin, a young man that i have a privilege of knowing back in michigan who was diagnosed with bipolar disorder when he was 11 years old, and at 14 was pressured by a peer group to holding up a pizzeria with a toy gun. he wound up in an adult prison and was -- spent nearly a year in segregation. who described his experience as an ongoing panic attack, and felt as though he was stuck in an elevator that he needed to escape from. and he eventually tried to commit suicide as his escape. but instead of helping kevin, the prison guards at the time simply increased his punishment, because that was all that they were trained and knowledgeable to do. too often our jails have become our country's mental institutions, and i believe that supporting bills such as the community mental health, collaborative mental health act that senator franken spoke of earlier will help provide resources to our states, law enforcement community, as well as to our state corrections officials when they're encountering and dealing with people that are suffering from mental health issues and mental illness. i would like to share some promising alternatives and strategies from justice fellowship's perspective of those that have reduced the use of segregation. that is first to use mission housing to target the need of prisoners with mental illness, developmental delays, and those at risk of sexual victimization. second, to use alternative responses to the disruptions outside of segregation. third is to increase the training for the prison staff on methods that promote positive social behavior within the bureau of prisons. jurisdictions employing these strategies have not only reduced their use of segregation but have also tracked concurrent reduction in the use of force on prisoners and the number of prison grievances. i want to acknowledge that the aca and other organizations have taken a very progressive stance on inviting in external and independent reviews, as has the bureau of prisons. and to this senate panel whether it's the internal revenue system or the department of justice, i believe that holding government accountable comes with no expiration date. and when the issues of human liberty and public safety are at stake, we must never give up the watch. and i would hope, senator, that this is not the end of the discussion today and that these can be continued, including the work with the newly authorized charles colson task force on prison reform. >> mr. deroche, thank you very much. it's not the end. this is round two, and i don't know how many more there will be, but i wanted to bring this issue up again and see if progress had been made, and i thank you for your participation. mr. levin, you're making me very nervous. we keep inviting you to these hearings and as a texas conservative i find myself agreeing with you more and more, so i'm hoping you'll at least highlight a few things that you know we disagree on, but thank you very much for coming and the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> turn the microphone on there. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership on this and i want to thank as well the ranking member who i have known and admired for many years, senator cruz. we are a conservative think tank but -- >> and i'll note on that you did find something you disagree with the chairman on. >> well, we are a conservative think tank but i will tell you that if we believe in making government less intrusive and personal responsibility and accountability, we have to shine the light in the darkest of places, and the most restrictive areas of government control, which is solitary confinement. so i'm pleased to be here today. one of the issues that we feel strongly about is ending the practice of releasing inmates directly from solitary confinement. this is a major problem in texas with over 1,300 such releases directly from solitary confinement in 2011 from texas state prisons. in washington state a study was done on their super max unit that found inmates released directly from solitary confinement were 35% more likely to commit a new offense and even more likely than that to commit a new violent offense as compared to comparable inmates with similar risk and offense profiles who were not released directly from solitary confinement. i also want to point out the successes we've seen in states around the country. mississippi, as noted earlier, has gone down from 1300 inmates in seven in solitary confinement to today only 300. that has sade them over $600 million. but most importantly, violence in mississippi prisons has dropped 70% since they made those reductions. and in maine, for example, they've gone from 139 in solitary confinement to between 35 and 45 today just in the last couple of years. and what i want to note is their corrections commissioner, joseph ponte, has noted the done sizing has led to a substantial reduction in violence, reductions in use of force in use of restraints, reductions in inmates cutting themselves up which used to happen every week. he said it's been almost totally eliminated as a part of these changes. part of what they've done is reducing the duration of solitary confinement. those that used to go there for drugs, they may still go, but if they test clean for drugs, they can graduate out of solitary confinement. and if somebody is being kept there for more than 72 hours, that decision is reviewed by the commissioner. one of the keys in texas to reducing our solitary confinement has been the gang renunciation and disassociation program. inmates can earn their way out of solitary confinement by exemplary behavior and renouncing their gang membership. using sanctions and incentives behind bars is a way to provide for incentives that lead inmates to behave better which, therefore, reduces the need for solitary confinement. one of the models is the parallel universe model used in arizona through their getting ready program. for example, inmates with exemplary behavior may have a longer curfew. those that misbehave may be denied certain privileges, such as making phone calls and, for example, also access to the mail and other things except for their attorneys. and so this creates a positive incentive. by the same token we know that swift sanctions work. we have to make sure we're not overusing solitary confinement for long periods. one of the perhaps strongest incentives is, of course, earned time. and i will tell you we're very pleased that senator cornyn, senator whitehouse, and other members are supporting earned time legislation, particularly for nonviolent offenders in the federal system. clearly by reducing the number of dead enders we can make sure folks have an incentive for good behavior in prison. and also, by the way, a study has shown 36% fewer new offenses for those released to parole as opposed to discharge without supervision. i want to go over a list of recommendations that we would urge you to do in addition to, of course, ending the release directly from solitary confinement. those include eliminating rules that deny any reading materials to those in solitary confinement, improving training in de-escalation techniques, training in mental retardation and mental illness. using that parallel universe model that creates incentive for positive behavior and self improvement. creating a matrix of intermediate sanctions. this wouldn't be for those who do serious bodily injury to a staff member or another inmate, who should go to solitary for a time period, but for those that commit minor violations, that they would have intermediate sanctions to get their attention and correct the behavior. reducing the number of dead enders, the mission housing which was mentioned earlier for those who are in protective custody, former police officers, those who are mentally ill, those in the process of leaving again. unfortunately those individuals often end up in the same 23-hour-a-day cell when we know these smaller housing communities with a better staff inmate ratio is address that issue. i will tell you if we can address the overcrowding, that helps immensely. because when you have inmates piled in day rooms with inadequate staff ratio, that makes it more difficult to defuse the very tensions that often lead to placement in solitary confinement. so i want to thank the committee for their work on this and i truly believe we're on the path to solutions that will both increase our order in prisons and make the public safer when these inmates are discharged. >> thanks, mr. levin. again, thanks to the entire panel. a special thanks to miss kerman and mr. thibodeaux for coming and speaking openly about their own experience in incarceration. mr. thibodeaux i have read your testimony three times. it is that compelling. i ask you to summarize it. >> thank you. thank you for inviting me to speak about my 15 years in solitary confinement on death row at the louisiana state penitentiary at angola. i'm here because in september of 2012 i became the 141st actually innocent death row exoneree since the u.s. supreme court reinstated capital punishment in 1976. but before i was exonerated and released i was subjected to solitary confinement for 23 hours a day for 15 years between the ages of 23 and 38. this experience was all the more painful and cruel because i had not committed the crime for which i had been sentenced to die. in my written statement i described the physical and mental torture that inmates in solitary confinement suffer. the diet is horrible, the heat and cold are often unbearable, and human contact and access to health care are severely limited. as harmful as these conditions are, life in solitary is made all the worse because it's often a hopeless existence. humans cannot survive without food and water. they can't survive without sleep, but they also cannot survive without hope. years on end in solitary, particularly on death row, will drain that hope from anyone because in solitary there's nothing to live for. i know this because i lost my hope. after realizing what my existence would be like for years on end until i was either executed or exonerated. i was on the verge of committing what was basically suicide by state. by voluntarily giving up my legal rights and allowing the state to carry out the sentence of death. something that would have been done only a few weeks after signing the necessary paperwork. my lawyer, denise labeouf, talked me out of doing that by convincing me that i would be exonerated and released some day. and that's why i was able to regain my hope and became willing to continue my legal fight. i was one of the fortunate on death row because i had denise and my other lawyers and supporters, but the state effectively kills most men in solitary years before it injects them with any lethal drugs. i can see no reason to subject anyone to this type of existence no matter how certain we are that they are guilty of a horrible crime and are among the worst of the worst. even if we want to punish them severely, we should refrain from this form of confinement and treatment only because it's the humane and moral thing for us to do. my religious faith teaches that we should be humane and caring for all people, saint and sinner alike. what does it say about us as a nation that even before the law allows the state to execute a person we're willing to let it kill them bit by bit and day by day by subjecting them to solitary confinement? i do not condone what those who have killed and committed other serious offenses have done, but i also don't condone what we do to them when we put them in solitary for years on end and treat them as sub human. we are better than that. as a civilized society we should be better than that. i would like to believe that the vast majority of the people in the united states would be appalled if they knew what we are doing to inmates in solitary confinement and understood that we are torturing them for reasons that have little, if anything, to do with protecting other inmates or prison guards from them. it's torture pure and simple no matter what else we want to call it. i would like to think that we can all agree that our constitution prohibits it. i thank the subcommittee for looking at the situation, educating the public about it, and am pleased to have any questions you may ask. >> mr. thibodeaux, in the opening statement i talked about the inmate that i met who said i got an extra 50 years because i told them if they put somebody in this cell i'd kill them and i did. it was a stunning, cold-blooded statement. did you run into similar circumstances of other inmates who were that dangerous? >> there was -- there was one. he volunteered for execution, and that's why he dropped his appeals, because he stated that if he ever got out he would do it again. >> what is the right thing to do with that kind of person based on what you've seen in your -- i don't know how to describe it -- incredible life experience? >> well, i have also come in contact with individuals who are in prison rightfully, they're on death row, and they make no attempt to profess their innocence. they just would prefer life as opposed to death. but someone who would make a statement like that to kill someone that's put in the cell with them, just leave them in the cell by themselves. you let them out at appropriate times. you don't just lock them in a hole and forget about them. you know, if i was to do that or you were to do that to someone in your home, you would go to prison for that. it's inhumane. >> thank you. miss kerman, i know that senator hirono and others may raise the question about incarcerated women, and you have lived that, and you know the vulnerabilities they have. i think about other categories, those who are being held for immigration offenses which are technical violations. they're not crimes, per se. i mean, it's a violation of law, no question about it, but it isn't a question of a violent crime or anything like that and the vulnerability they would have because of language and culture and threat of deportation. what can you tell us about those women and what they face? >> women who have not been convicted of a crime and yet are held in confinement and potentially subjected to solitary confinement for any variety of reasons. that's a horrifying thought. too often solitary confinement is used not to control people who are truly dangerous to themselves or others but as a tool of control within an institution when other management tools of an institution, whether it be a detention center or whether it be a prison or a jail, would be far more humane and likely more effective. >> was there any recourse at danbury in terms of a person or office that you could contact as an inmate if you saw or felt you were being threatened by a guard for example? >> your best chance if you felt that you were under threat and in danger from either a staffer or frankly from another prisoner would be if you had contact with the outside world. and different prisoners have different degrees of contact with the outside world. frankly, a prisoner like myself who is middle class and has a lot of access, you know, money on my phone account and so on and so forth, has a much better chance at gaining recourse if i was subjected to either sexual abuse or any other kind of abuse. but within a prison system, it is a very slippery slope to try to gain justice, and inmates have a very limited trust of prison officials unless a prison is run in a way that is transparent and humane in the first place. so, you know, there's a medium security men's state prison i visited in ohio a number of times. it is run in a very, very different way than any prison i was ever held in. and the warden there is a really remarkable person. so different institutions are run in very different ways and it makes all the difference in terms of whether a prisoner who is being targeted for abuse, whether it is by staff or by another prisoner, feels comfortable seeking justice. >> mr. thibodeaux, how much contact did you have with the outside world in your 15-year experience? >> i had -- >> you need to turn -- >> i had five contact visits with my family in the 15 years i was there. >> how often were you able to meet with your attorney? >> whenever they got up to visit. i had a law firm from minneapolis on my case as well. they probably saw me there three, maybe four times. >> in 15 years? >> in 15 years. but i was more concerned with the case work they were doing. if they wanted to come and visit me, fine. being in a cell like that, you kind of cherish the visits, you know, but i was more concerned with the progress that was being made in my case. >> mr. raemisch, there was a point in director samuels' testimony that kind of stunned me. i thought what he said was 4% of the federal population in prison suffered from mental illness. i may be off on that number, but not too far off. i have heard numbers about people with mental illness challenges in prisons, state and otherwise, dramatically higher than that. what is your impression about the question of mental illness and incarceration? >> i'm not sure -- i can't speak for him, and i believe the 4% was right that he said, but what went through my mind was it's very possible he was talking about those that fall within the definition of major mentally ill, which our number is about 4%. but our mental health needs that don't fall into that major category is 34%. so it's about a third of our population. i can tell you about 70% of our population has some type of drug and/or alcohol problem also to throw into the mix. >> and what we found in the first hearing was that many people with -- mentally challenged people found it difficult to follow the rules as well as they should have, and any type of resistance on their part because either they wanted to resist or they were mentally challenged, was answered with segregation. >> let me give you the example i give when i speak publicly about it. if i was walking down the sidewalk past a bus stop and someone was mumbling fairly loudly to themselves like is often the case, we'd keep walking and understand that there was some type of mental health issue. typically in an institution that would probably get someone, if they were disrupting the day-to-day activities of the institution, would get themselves into an administrative seg cell. so what i have said, and i can't stress this enough in my mind, is that administrative segregation is used, except for the extremely dangerous, is used to allow an institution to run more efficiently. it suspends the problem at best, but multiplies it at its worst, and so it does run more efficiently until you let that person out of there. and if you haven't addressed what got him in there to begin with, you've done nothing. and that's the problem with the mentally ill. what i struggle with and what we're trying to change in colorado and we're making great progress is how can you hold someone accountable if they don't understand the rule they broke to begin with. it's a no-win situation. >> thank you. senator cruz? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank each of the witnesses for coming here and for giving your testimony, and i'd also like to thank you for your advocacy and involvement with the justice system and advocating on behalf of those who are incarcerated. and in particular, mr. thibodeaux, i'd like to thank you for your powerful and moving testimony. when i was a lawyer in private practice, i had the opportunity to represent john thompson, who was another individual who was wrongfully convicted of murder in louisiana and sentenced to death, and he was subsequently exonerated. and it was a powerful experience personally having the opportunity to get to know mr. thompson and to represent him both in the court of appeals and the u.s. supreme court. and so let me echo the chairman's comment to apologize to you for the ordeal you endured. >> thank you, sir. >> and to thank you for having the courage to speak out about it, because that cannot be easy to do. >> no. >> this issue is an issue that raises complicated issues because you've got conflicting interests. mr. raemisch, i'd like to ask, in your judgment, with what frequency is solitary confinement used for relatively minor infractions? >> i can only at this point give you my impression, and my impression is that it is incredibly overused in that area. i was talking during the break that really the process hasn't changed in over 100 years, and i try to think of what is still being done 100 years ago that's being done today that should be done, and i can't think of anything. and so when i look at that whole process, it, again, has become a tool to make a facility run more efficient, and that part of our mission we're failing because we're sending them out into the community worse than they came in. and i believe that's what lengthy periods of time in administrative segregation does. and, you know, if i may just say that when i hear some of the comments -- and i spoke at john jay university a few weeks ago on some issues in corrections, and sitting next to me was the director of the texas corrections and florida -- or california corrections, some pretty big systems. and when i was asked a question by one of the audience members, i said, and i pointed to the others, welcome to the knuckle dragging thug club. because the public perception is that's what we are. and if i can stress one thing -- and i saw mr. samuels try to stress it and i would also, is that at one time in my early law enforcement career i may have had that same impression, but i truly have to tell you that overall i have never seen a more dedicated professional group of men and women that risk their lives and they do it because they want to have a safer community and they put themselves at great risk to do that. that aside, there's, like any large bureaucracy, and we tend to be the largest in each state or close to it -- i have 6,000 employees -- you end up with problems. and it's how we react to those problems, and that's why right now, one, i really appreciate what you've done by calling this hearing and, two, by having me participate. because i can tell you that i don't know of any state in the nation that is not taking a very hard look at their administrative segregation policies. you have really brought it to the forefront. we all understand that as professionals that the movement is to -- this isn't the right way we should be treating people and we get that. what we do ask for is help in finding some solutions, because there are some that are too dangerous that they can't be let out. but i also have to stress that's a small number. >> thank you, mr. raemisch. in your written testimony you stated that while the goal of many of your reforms is to decrease the number of offenders housed in administrative segregation there will always be a need for a prison within a prison. some will need to be secured to provide a secure environment for staff and offenders. it strikes me that a great many people would think that solitary confinement, particularly for an extended period of time, is not an appropriate punishment for relatively minor infractions, but could well be a necessary tool for the most violent inmates who may pose a real threat to the safety of other inmates or of guards. each of the members of this panel has interacted with the criminal justice system in different capacities. miss kerman and mr. thibodeaux as inmates. mr. raemisch administering a correctional institution and system. mr. deroche ministering and helping bring hope and redemption to those incarcerated. mr. levin, studying the important justice issues. a question i would ask of all five of you is, in your judgment, based on the different experiences you've had, is there an appropriate role for solitary confinement? is there a need for it? and in what circumstances, if at all? i would welcome the views of all five witnesses. >> in my mind right now, yes, but in a limited sense, and that's because -- i have said that there are some diseases for which there are no cure right now. and that doesn't mean we don't keep trying to find the cure for the disease. but what i've been told by my head clinicians is we have four to five in our system, that if they are let out of administrative segregation they will kill someone. and they lay that responsibility on me and i get that. but i also understand that in all other areas that there's so much room for improvement. let's figure that group out a little while from now. let's take care of all the other numbers sitting in administrative segregation. there are many other alternatives than keeping them there. >> i would first of all say we have to distinguish 24 hour, even 72 hour placement to defuse the situation from long term. in texas state prisons the average time in solitary is four years. so some served as long as 24 years. the other issue is, in texas thousands are placed in solitary confinement solely for being suspected gang members upon initially entering prison having committed no disciplinary violations. and i think it's critical that -- and i question the extent to which we're doing that in texas. we have gone down in our total solitary confinement by over a thousand since we started bringing this up and there's an ongoing study in texas that the legislature approved last session. but i think one of the issues you brought up, commissioner, i think that's very important is if you have got somebody in solitary who is 23 hours, no stimulation, having them be able to earn an hour more this month, okay, and programming and such so that they can get out or gradually work their way towards more interaction. and so that's a great idea. and i think generally speaking, as i have said, the more you can create both positive incentives and graduated sanctions for inmates to address disciplinary issues, that's going to be able to make sure that the people in long term solitary confinement really should be those who have done harm to other inmates or staff or who have made statements indicating they intend to do that. and, again, the short term can be used 24, 72 hours, to diffuse -- but even that we've heard about the teams, there's de-escalation training, just making sure there's not overcrowding and proper ratios. that can defuse a lot of tensions that lead to violence behind bars. >> there's a study, senator, that was done in minnesota for a faith-based dorm that we've run there for more than ten years. but it was a ten-year study of every single inmate that went through that program, and it found there was a 0.8% recidivism rate, and that was every type of prisoner that went through there from the worst of the worst on through. and at the same time it found that there was no deviation between the technical violations of the people that went through that program and the general population in minnesota, which had a 37% recidivism rate. in other words, human beings were still going to be human beings even if they've moved away from a criminal lifestyle. so i do think that the director's comments about technical violations, that we should take to heart that, boy, that's the same type of behavior i see in my kids. that's the same type of behavior i see in the workplace. and guess what? when we study it and we find a bunch of people moved away from criminal activity, they're still going to get it wrong on a technical side of how they get through a day. and so we need to take that seriously. what i started my statement with, if you want to change the culture on the outside in our cities and in our states, we've got to change the culture on the inside. and i am so impressed and encouraged to hear people going out, mr. chairman, and to the director, his willingness to see people who are doing it right. because there are prisons where the population, the people in the prisons have made a decision they don't want to live in a bad downward spiraling culture. and when skilled wardens change that culture and they use very sparingly the use of segregation with people knowing that they can return back to a positive and improving culture when they straighten their act out, that's where it's best used. temporary, always with the invitation of working your way back. because these corrections officers do have the responsibility the same as the noble people that serve in our fire departments, our police departments, they're supposed to be making it more safe for us as taxpayers when these people leave. they've got a difficult job, but we've got to empower them. we've got to train them, and we have to hold them accountable. we have to have oversight like we do in the other professions. when you're using this power, how is it being meted out and to what end, to what results, what outcomes, what metrics because we can do a far better job than they are, senator. but you're not going to be able to eliminate it if that's what you're asking for. >> i don't believe that solitary confinement has a rehabilitative value and, therefore, i think that it should not be used other than for the most serious security concerns. what i have seen solitary confinement used most often is that disciplinary seg, not ad seg. because it is true that women often do not go into ad seg, though sometimes they do spend years and years in solitary confinement. there is not rehabilitative about being locked into a tiny box for 23 hours a day. and so correctional systems should take very seriously their responsibility to rehabilitate and direct the tremendous amounts of taxpayer dollars that they consume towards that goal. >> in my 15 years in angola, it got to a point where we were all being taken to the yard one at a time. when i got there, they were taking us one tier at a time, but an incident takes place and everyone suffers the consequences, not just the person who commits the incident, and that's a real big minus in the system because it tells everyone else that, well, it doesn't matter if i'm the model inmate because i'm going to get punished if someone else does something wrong anyway, so why should i bother? if solitary confinement is going to be used for the worst of the worst, as it should because safety is the biggest issue in prison because -- let's face it, we all agree that not everyone in prison is innocent. so if it's going to be used, know your limitations with it. you know, don't just lock someone up in a cell and forget about them. they're still a human being somewhere. they may have mental issues. they may have emotional issues, but if you identify that and find a way around it, then you can deal with it in a humane way. it doesn't have to be, okay, just put them in a jumpsuit and shower shoes and lock him in the cell for 23 hours a day, you know. the one thing i wanted more of when i was in the cell is time out of the cell, you know. sadly, that's not the reality. but if you want to have solitary confinement, use it in the most limited capacity possible. >> thank you very much to all five of you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of you for coming and testifying and shedding light on this issue, and i particularly want to thank mr. thibodeaux because your testimony was very -- you have been there. and as we say in hawaii, mahalo for sharing your terrible experiences. i am especially concerned about reports that women are confined in solitary for reporting abuse, including sexual abuse by the bureau of prisons staff. and especially as i have been working with senator gillibrand and other senators to address the issue of sexual assault in the military, which is another institution where survivors of sexual assault can also be at the mercy of their supervisors in the chain of command due to the power dynamic and possible threats of retaliation that can exist in both of these environments. so i want to thank you, miss kerman, for your testimony. and i do note that mr. raemisch, you noted that 97% of our prisoners do get released into the community, so we really need to pay attention to what's happening with them. because as you say, mr. worse, than when they were in prison, and i think that's a sentiment that all of us would share. miss kerman, you heard director samuels' responses to my questions about what happens in the instance of the abuse of power by the bureau of prisons personnel, especially with regard to women and sexual abuse. now, having heard his responses, do you think that the bureau of prisons is doing enough to prevent and prosecute this kind of abuse of power by their staff? >> no. i believe that in every women's prison and jail that sexual abuse of women and girls by staff is a problem. in some places like otter creek, kentucky, or tutwiler prison in alabama those abuses have been revealed to be systemic and very widespread and very sinister. what i observed during the time i was locked up was that a staff member who was under suspicion for sexually abusing prisoners would be removed from direct contact with the prisoner or prisoners that he was accused -- there were always men in the instances that i knew of, but they would still be there on the property and, of course, a person is innocent until proven guilty. i firmly believe that, but many, many aspects of the experience of incarceration have that silencing effect. the fact that your abuser may not, in fact, be far away from you, may be in view. he might be driving perimeter in the facility in which you are held and so you might, in fact, see him all the time. the fear of solitary confinement and isolation, i can't overemphasize how powerful a disincentive that is. to go into the shu for 90 days is a really long time, and typically during the type of sis investigation that happens in the b.o.p., those investigations do not happen quickly. not only will you deal with the pain of isolation which is so well detailed in some of the written testimony which has been submitted to this committee, but on a very practical level, you will lose your housing, you will lose your prison job, you will lose a host of privileges obviously if you're held in isolation. all of these things conspire to really, really silence women and, of course, the concern about how much they can trust the people to whom they are supposed to report abuse is a very serious consideration. >> so there are all kinds of disincentives in the environment where reporting of these kinds of abuse of power does not readily occur. do you have any thoughts on what we can do, and i'm not even talking about using the threat of being put into solitary as a way to control and hide this kind of behavior on the part of the staff. >> the best case scenario is for female prisoners and frankly for all prisoners to have increased access to the outside world. so the person you would be most inclined to trust in terms of seeking redress against abuse would not necessarily be someone inside of the institution in which you live. access to counsel is a tremendously important issue. the vast majority of prisoners in any system are indigent. 80% of criminal defendants are too poor to afford a lawyer, and so their access to counsel before they're locked up is poor and their access to counsel while they're locked up is negligible. those are the things that would make the biggest difference and frankly those things would make the biggest difference in their rehabilitation as well not just their ability to access justice while incarcerated but also in their ability to be rehabilitated and to return safely to the community. the isolation of solitary confinement is just a small metaphor for the total isolation of incarceration, and when we put people to the margins, it makes it harder for them to return to the community. >> and i don't want to confine my questions on women and the deleterious effect, the negative effect, but for the rest of the panel miss kerman has said maybe one of the ways we can shed light on what is going on in the prison system, and i'm not saying this is symptomatic of everything that's going on. it's a tough problem, but would you agree that providing more access to the outside world is one way that we can prevent some of the these abuses of power from occurring within the system? >> yes, and also an ombudsman. we had a scandal of sexual abuses in our juvenile state facilities in texas in late 2006, early 2007. one of the things we did was create an ombudsman's office which is not in the chain of command of any prison warden and actually reported directly to the commission, texas youth commission at that time, whose members are appointed by the governor. so not reporting even to the paid director of the commission. so when you have an ombudsman who is not in the chain of command at a particular prison unit who these reports of abuses can go to and that individual can then independently look into them and certainly not every one is accurate, but some of them are. when it's not kept totally within the unit, there's more accountability and independence in examining that. >> would the rest of you agree that's one of the ways that we could help? >> i would say very much so, and we find that at prison fellowship the more that the prison lets folks in from the outside, the less problems that exist. it's an inverse relationship, and i think that that would continue, and i know the gravity for a state or federal officials, i saw it first hand when i was speaker of the house in michigan. we had a mentally ill inmate found dead in his cell after being neglected for 72 hours and the cell was 110 degrees and i fought that as hard as i could but the gravity was we've got this, we've got an investigation, we've got people. it didn't get the satisfactory outcomes you would get with the justice system on the outside. we need independent voices. i think people need immediate access, not a month later, to a phone call about something that's happened in their life, senator? >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time is up. >> senator, senator hirono. i want to thank everyone who has testified here today. we have over 130 statements that have been submitted for the record. i won't read the names of all the groups, but i thank them, each and every one. they will be made part of the record without objection. i asked my staff to look up a quote which was in the back of my mind. i got part of it right. dostoyevski who said the degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons. and that is why this hearing and this testimony is so important. we have our charge is to deal with issues involving the constitution, civil rights, and human rights, and i think all three of those elements come together in what we're talking about today. there's some things that strike me as more or less consensus. we don't want to release people from segregation or solitary into society. the results are disastrous and they've been well documented. we don't want to see children in solitary confinement or segregation. perhaps in the most extreme cases maybe, but otherwise no. we know the vulnerability of women in incarceration and even more so in segregation and we certainly know the impact of mental illness on the behavior of prisoners and the problems that they run into once put in solitary confinement. if you get a chance to read mr. thibodeaux's testimony, do it, because he goes through in graphic detail elements of segregation or solitary confinement which should not be acceptable under any circumstances, under any circumstances, where the food you're given is barely edible, where there's virtually no medical care given to those who are in this situation, where -- i'm struck by the sentence where you said for 15 years you never saw the night sky or stars. it just is one of those gripping realizations when you think about what you've been through. the limited access you had to even keep your body fit. limited access you had to outside visitors, even as you said, you made a conscious choice that you didn't want your son to see you there during that circumstance. all of these things suggest treatment which goes beyond incarceration. it really crosses the line, mr. raemisch, i think in terms of what we should do to any human being, any fellow human being, and that's what this comes to. i thank you all for being here. this is not the last of these hearings until the problem is resolved, and i don't know that it will ever be totally resolved but we are moving on the right path. the first hearing started the conversation and i sense we are starting to move in the right direction at many different levels. i commend the states and i think senator cruz would join me in saying many of the states have shown a real willingness to take this issue on even more than we have, and i think it's important that they continue that and we learn from them in the process. we will leave the record open for about a week, if you get written questions, you might. it is rare, but it happens. if you would respond and return them, we would appreciate it very much. senator cruz thanks for being here. senator hirono, thanks very much. this subcommittee stands adjourned. tonight on c-span3, washington journal's interview with michigan state university president luanna k. simon. it's part of our special series on universities in the big ten conference. that will be followed by events featuring conservative political figures and journalists. we'll bring you a discussion on the future of the republican party moderated by columnist david brooks. and then selections from this year's western conservative summit in colorado. plus, ben carson speaking earlier this year at the national press club. you can see all that starting at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. college athletics is the topic of a forum today at the national press club. c-sp c-span's live coverage begins at 1:00 p.m. eastern with remarks from u.s. olympic committee ceo scott blackmun. later in the day a discussion with university officials, athletic directors and sports reporters about the money being spent on today's college athletic programs. that will be live at 3:00 p.m. then the conversation continues with a discussion on whether or not student athletes should be compensated based on the theory that they're employees of the school they play for. live at 4:45 p.m. eastern on c-span. c-span's 2015 student cam competition is under way. this nationwide competition for middle and high school students will award 150 prizes totalling $100,000. create a five to seven minute documentary on the topic "the three branches and you." videos need to include c-span programming, show varying points of view, and must be submitted by january 20th, 2015. go to studentcam.org for more information. grab a camera and get started today. the house judiciary committee formed a special task force in 2013 to examine criminal sentencing. in late june, the task force looked at the impact criminal convictions were having on individuals when it came to such things as voting or their ability to get housing. this is a little over an hour. >> ask for us on criminalization will come to order. without objection, the chair will be authorized to declare recesses during votes on the floor. let me see, we're supposed to have an hour and half worth of votes beginning at 10:30 to 10:45. and i don't think that it would be advisable to have witnesses sit for an hour and a half and i don't know how many members will be coming back after an hour and half, so i'd like to wrap this up by 10:30, 10:45. i have an opening statement. i yield myself five minutes. good morning and welcome to the eighth hearing of the judiciary committee's overcriminalization task force. today's hearing will focus on the collateral consequences associated with a criminal conviction. over its first seven hearings, the task force examined issues related to criminal attempt over federalization, penalties and other issues which affect criminal defendants during the investigative and prosecutorial phases of the criminal justice process. however, today's hearing will examine the consequences that follow a criminal conviction which may not be immediately apparent during the pendency of a criminal case. the american bar association knows that some collateral consequences serve an important and legitimate public safety or regulatory function such as keeping firearms out of the hands of violent offenders, protecting children or the elderly from persons with a history of physical, mental or sexual abuse, or barring people convicted of fraud from positions of public trust. others are directly related to the particular crime such as registration requirements for sex offenders, drivers license restrictions for those convicted of serious traffic offenses, or disbarment of those convicted of procurement fraud. however, advocates for reform in this area including our panel today have argued that in many cases, the collateral consequences applicable to a given criminal conviction are scattered throughout the code books and frequently unknown to those responsible for their administration and enforcement. this claim should sound familiar to members of this task force since the witnesses before us have repeatedly demonstrated that statutes carrying criminal penalties are also scattered throughout the u.s. code. additionally the supreme court recognized in padilla versus kentucky in 2010 that when a person considering a guilty plea is unaware of serious consequences that will inexorably follow, this raises questions of fairness and implicates the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. i agree that this area is one that the task force should consider during its evaluation of the overcriminalization of federal law. however, there are several areas where i have serious concerns. most notably with regard to the argument that advanced by many including at least one of our witnesses today that congress should force private employers to ignore employees' criminal history when making a hiring decision via a ban the box and other legislative initiatives. generally i do not believe that adult offenders who engage in violent and other forms of mal conduct should be able to complain about the consequences of their actions. additionally, over the years congress has repeatedly seen fit to make criminal history records available to be employers including schools, banks, power plants, and other vital parts of our nation's infrastructure in order to protect public health and safety. proposals such as ban the box run directly contrary to that important effort. additionally, as the author of the adam walsh child protection and safety act of 2006, i have serious concerns with any efforts to characterize dangerous sex offenders who prey on our children as suffering from an unjust collateral consequence. having said that, during my tenure in congress, i have been a consistent proponent of efforts to happy reality ex-offenders and lessen their risk of reoffending following release. last year, i reintroduced the hr-3465, the second chance reauthorization act of 2013. this bipartisan legislation which has been cosponsored by the task force's ranking member, mr. scott, would reauthorize and streamline the grant programs in the second chance act to help ex-offenders become productive members of our society. i want to thank the witnesses for appearing today and look forward to hearing about these and other issues associated with the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. it is now my pleasure to recognize for his opening statement the ranking member of the task force, the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, last hearing focused on the problem of overincarceration and the need for proportional evidence based in individualized sentencing. the pew center on the states estimates that any ratio of over 350 per 100,000 in jail today begins to get a diminishing return for additional incarceration. they also tell us that anything over 500 per 100,000 actually becomes counterproductive because you're wasting so much money, you're messing up so many families, if so many people with felony records that it actually increases crime, not decreases crime. data shows that beyond -- data shows since 1992, the annual prison costs from gone from about $9 billion to over $65 billion adjusted for inflation and that increase of prison costs was over six times greater than higher education. this hearing focuses on the significant punitive and often counterproductive collateral consequences that obstruct impede and undermine successful re-entry. our witnesses today will share the data that demonstrates that our existing system of state and federal collateral consequences waste of tax pace payers money violate common sense and are ultimately counterproductive to the goal of public safety. just like each of the 195 man mandatory minimum has gotten into our code each and every one of over the 45,000 collateral consequences that were written in the state and federal law got there slowly over time. when considered in isolation, a collateral consequence may not initially appear to be a high hurdle to re-entry and success but taken together, these collateral consequences form a tightly woven web that restricts individuals from over coming the hurdles in their path. many of these collateral consequences are born from the worst of the worst of these tough on crime sound bites masquerading as sound public policy. just as mandatory minimum sentences sentence people before they're even charged or convicted, based solely on the code section violated without any consideration to the seriousness of the crime or the role of the defendant, collateral consequences apply across the board into "all convicted felons." for example in the drug context in the fiscal year 2012, 60% of convicted federal drug defendants were convicted of offenses carrying a mandatory minimum penalty of some sort. right now restrictions on your ability to work, live, learn and survive are the same irrespective of your offense or how long ago it was or what role you played. the collateral consequences you face are not narrowly tailored or even tailored at all. it's a one-size-fits-all there another example of tough on crime sweeping far too broadly and far too harshly. there is no reliable scientific data that demonstrates any of these collateral consequences improve public safety, reduce recidivism or save money. to the contrary, all the evidence is the opposite. collateral consequences of conviction affect an individual's ability to obtain necessary social services, employment, professional licenses, housing, student loans to further their education, the ability to interact with their children and critically, power through the voting in the democratic process. all of these restrictions among tens of thousands of other ones have resulted in lifelong civil penalties that prevent individuals from transitioning back to society successfully and serve to marginalize and stigmatize those with prior convictions. and treat them as second-class citizens. just as the children's defense fund has recognized secure housing, employment, education and other social services are the best crime prevention resources to redirect individuals from what they call the cradle to prison pipeline towards a cradle to college and career pipeline, so too must we apply the same data to redirect those reentering our communities after serving their sentences. when there is no hope for a decent job because employers refuse to hire those with a prior conviction, we can't be surprised that some chose to return -- choose to return to the very paths that led them to prison in the first place. often, there is no bearing, no correlation or no relevance between someone's prior conviction and the job they're applying. some circumstances there may be value at looking at the criminal conviction. it makes sense for someone with an embezzlement conviction to be denied a job at a bank. but what does a 30-year-old marijuana possession conviction have to do with someone getting a good paying construction job? the eeoc has issued guidance that provides that an employer's use of an individual's criminal record of may may discriminate against them if there is a disproportionate impact on certain minorities without any job related relationship. that could constitute discrimination. so although the criminal record may be relevant, could i have about 30 more seconds? >> without objection. >> although the criminal record may be relevant, the untargeted overly broad denial of all jobs because of any federal record may actually constitute discrimination. mr. chairman, i thank you for holding the hearing and look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. without objection, other members' opening statements will be made a part of the record. it is now my pleasure to introduce the two witnesses this morning. mr. rick jones is the executive director and a founding member of the neighborhood defender service of harlem. mr. jones is a lecturer at columbia law school where he teaches criminal defense externship and a trial practice course. he is on the faculty of the national criminal defense college in macon, georgia and is frequently invited to lecture on criminal justice issues throughout the country. he currently serves as secretary of the national association of criminal defense lawyers and previously served that organization as a two-term member of the board of directors parliamentarian, co-chair of both the indigent defense committee and the special task force on problem solving courts and is currently cochair of the task force on the restoration of rights and status after conviction. platform mathias heck is a prosecuting attorney from montgomery county, ohio. he previously served montgomery county as a law clerk and then as assistant prosecuting attorney. he received his undergraduate degree from marquette university which is a very wise choice and his jd degree from the georgetown university law center. i would ask all of you to limit your opening remarks to five minutes. i think you're all aware of what red, yellow and green means and the timer before you. and even though i introduced you second, the prosecution always puts their case in first. so mr. heck, the floor is yours. >> good morning, mr. chairman. members of the task force. thank you very much. i appreciate your comment about marquette. okay? thank you. again, good morning. i appreciate your comments about marquette university. and i know it's very dear to your heart. in addition to being the prosecuting attorney for montgomery county, dayton ohio i am honored to be the chair of the criminal justice section of the american bar association which is a section of about 20,000 members which include the whole array of the partners of the criminal justice section and the criminal justice process in the american system. and that is judges, defense lawyers, prosecutors, law professors and other law enforcement personnel. i appear today to talk about the aba's view you have collateral sanctions and how it relates to convictions and also highlight some of the things that the american bar association has done. as many of you know, the american legal system has long recognized that certain legal disabilities or collateral sanctions result from a criminal conviction in addition to a sentence. so there may be a prescribed sentence relating to a crime but attached there to may be collateral sanctions. or disabilities that are also imposed in addition to the sentence. that sentence could be probation, could be to the penitentiary or a combination of both. these collateral consequences of conviction include such familiar penalties disenfranchisement, deportation, loss of professional licenses, felon registration, ineligibility for certain public welfare benefits even loss of a driver's license and many more. over the last number of years, collateral consequences have been increasing steadily in variety and severity throughout the country. and they have been accumulated with little coordination in state and federal laws making it almost impossible to determine all of the penalties and disabilities applicable to a particular offense. now, some collateral sanctions or consequences do serve an important and legitimate public purpose. as the chairman has already mentioned, keeping firearms out of the hands of persons committed of crimes of violence or barring persons convicted of embezzlement from holding certain public interest jobs or deny diagnose driving privileges to those convicted of aggravated vehicular homicide. other collateral sanctions are more difficult to justify. particularly when applied automatically across the board to a complete category of convicted persons. and the reason is, it results in serious implications not only in terms of fairness and as a prosecutor i can say this, not only in regards to fairness to the individual charged but also to the resulting burdens on the community on the citizens. collateral consequences can also present challenges to the issue of re-entry and re-entry is very important. it may become a surprise to many of you but local prosecutors throughout the country have already spearheaded re-entry programs because we see this as a public safety issue. nonetheless, not all collateral consequences of conviction are effective. many have no relationship to public safety. and prevent a former offender from doing productive work in order to support a family and contribute to the community. this effect to employment results and represents one of the more difficult issues facing i think our justice system and our nation. the reality is that ex-offenders who cannot find jobs that provide sufficient income to support themselves and their families are more likely to commit more criminal acts and find themselves again back in prison. now, the american bar association has adopted a comprehensive set of principles regarding collateral sanctions. and they have two primary goals. one to encourage awareness of all involved in the justice system process of the full legal consequences of a conviction. so when someone is convicted, they know what's going to happen. and secondly, to focus attention on the impact of collateral consequences on the process by which a convicted person can get into re-entry and become back come back into the community and be a productive member of the community. they also call for a significant number of reforms to the law. number one, the law should identify with particularity the type, severity and duration of the collateral sanctions. so if there is a collateral sanction to a particular crime everyone knows what it is. now the collateral consequences of conviction project which is funded by the national institute of justice and completed just recently by the american bar association is something that was authorized by congress. we started it in 2009. we just completed it and we have adopted and found 45,000 collateral consequences. and again, the hope is that we can categorize these and that everyone knows it's open to the public, to defense lawyers, to prosecutors, and that way everyone can understand what the collateral consequences are, they're readily available and they know what's involved. thank you very much. i appreciate it. i'll be glad to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. heck. mr. jones? >> thank you for the invitation to appear before you this morning. we have a lot of ground to cover in a little time. i'm going to get right into it. 68 million people in this country are living with a criminal record. that's one in every four adults. 20 million people with felony convictions, 14 million new arrests every year, 2.2 million people residing in jail or prison. that's more than anywhere else in the world. as a member of the nacdl task force that produced this lateral damage report, i had the opportunity to travel to every region of the country and listen to the testimony of people living with convictions as well as to the testimony of many other stake holders in the criminal justice system. in northern california we heard from a chief of police who was dealing with a significant crime problem, a rising murder rate and widespread community distrust. as he searched for solutions he realized that he was policing from a place of fear. that was his term, policing from a place of fear. he was not serving or protecting the community. he was at war with the community. his officers did not really know the citizens they were policing, distrust and fear was the order of the day. it wasn't until he took the time to get to know the people he was charged with protecting that he recognized and appreciated their humanity. trust and understanding improved. and his crime problem began to decline. 68 million people living with convictions more than the entire population of france, we are in danger of becoming a nation of criminals because we are policing from a place of fear. 14 million new arrests every year. we are prosecuting from a place of fear. 45,000 collateral consequences on the books in this country. 45,000 roadblocks to the restoration of rights and status after conviction, we are legislating from a place of fear. the time has come for change in our national mind-set. we must move from the penalty, prosecution, and endless punishment to forgiveness, redemption and restoration. a great way for this task force to begin the healing process is to implement the first recommendation in our report. a call for a national restoration of rights day, a day every year where we can celebrate redemption and restoration with educational programs for employers, skills training workshops for the effective community, jobs fairs, certificate of relief programs at no cost and no cost opportunities, no cost opportunities to clean up your rap sheet. more concretely, there are four steps this task force can take that will have an immediate impact on the collateral damage of collateral consequences. first, you must repeal federal mandatory collateral consequences. 14 million new arrests each year, 68 million people living with convictions, mandatory automatic across the board collateral consequences make no sense. you cannot paint with that broad a brush. there is no public safety benefit in stripping people of their right to vote. eliminate mandatory collateral consequences and stop creating new ones. second, you must provide meaningful federal relief mechanisms for those people living with federal convictions. first and foremost, 14 million new arrests each year is indicative of the problem. we must create avenues for diversion in the federal criminal justice system. defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges must be cognizant of diversion opportunities and promote them. judges have to be empowered with relief at sentencing. individualized relief tailored to the individual and unique circumstances. the federal pardon process must be reinvigorated and carried out. pardons should be routinely granted in the ordinary course of business. the process must be transparent and accessible to all. the media must be informed and aware of the process and there should be dedicated staff committed to the regularized review of pardon applications. third, for those discretionary consequences that remain, they must be clearly established guidelines for decision makers to follow guidelines with respect to revaens, passage of time, and evidence of rehabilitation. there should be a presumption of irrelevance for any conviction beyond a certain number of years and from anyone who has shown evidence of rehabilitation. finally, consumer reporting agencies and background check companies must be regulated. rap sheets are not a commodity. we should not be creating a market in the buying and selling of people's conviction records. there are some law enforcement agencies in this country that sell rap sheets. that must stop. any records disclosed must be accurate. the fbi website which is the main source of criminal record acquisition is wrong 50% of the time. it must be cleaned up and maintained. and there must be an easily accessible no cost method for individuals to check their rap sheets and make corrections or updates. the time has come to end the economic drain of collateral consequences. the endless government intrusion into the lives of our citizens and the social and moral havoc they wreak on individuals, on families and entire communities. we need a coherent national approach to forgiveness, to redemption, to restoration of rights and status after conviction. thank you. i look forward to your questions. thank you, mr. jones. the chair is going to put himself at the end of the question queue. just so in case we run out of time, all of the other members will be able to ask questions and at this time, well, before recognizing the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, let me say that the chair is going to be especially vigilant at enforcing the five-minute rule so that everybody has a chance. >> why do you say that? >> i do have a reputation of looking at the red light. gentleman from virginia, mr. scott. >> thank you. mr. heck, ban the box has been mentioned. is that where you have to check off on your application that you've been convicted of a felony? does that prohibit an employer from considering on an individualized basis your criminal record? >> what we -- first of all, on behalf of the american bar association, the american bar association has not taken a position on that. i think there are discussions that have to be had on that. i think we're seeing a lot of problems that are associated with that particular issue. >> the point is, if you don't check off the box, it does not subsequently eliminate the employer's consideration of your record but only on an individualized basis and whether or not the record is relevant to the job. mr. jones, do you know, are you familiar with the eeoc guidance on the -- can you say a word about that? >> ban the box, you're absolutely correct, congressman scott. ban the box does not prevent an employer from having an opportunity to review and determine relevancy of a person's criminal record or criminal conviction. all ban the box does is get the person's foot in the door initially. it allows them to have an opportunity to prove their credentials, to prove their ability to do a job. and before and once an employer is in a position to think that this individual is able to do the job and someone who we would like to employ, they then have the opportunity to review the person's criminal record and decide whether it's relevant, whether they've rehabilitated, whether there's been enough passage of time so that it's not a factor but they do at the end of the process have the opportunity to know and evaluate the person's record, so ban the box is not a wholesale preclusion. >> you never would have gotten to the point where you would have been considered if you checked the box, your application would have been thrown in the trash. when you talk about collateral consequences a couple things that haven't been mentioned is the total waste of money. california many years ago spent a lot more money on higher education than prisons. now prisons have exceeded by a large margin what they're spending on higher education. so the waste of money crowds out things and that is a collateral consequence of overincarceration and children with parents in prison are also at high risk. just very briefly, mr. heck, can you tell me whether the automatic across account board collateral consequences help keep people from coming to jail or add to coming back to jail? for example, collateral consequence on employment making it more difficult to get a job, does that help or hurt in terms of recidivism? >> i think it's counterproductive to what we're trying to do. i think that across the board, any type of across the board sanction without looking at the particular offense and the particular offender is counterproductive. >> what about education? >> well, education is the same way. it's interesting in ohio, we have dealt with that and the legislature has over the last year. there are a number of alternatives that we now offer to prison. and i mean, a number of different alternatives that they have to try because again, it makes no sense when we're talking about re-entry, most of the individual who's go to the penitentiary are going to be released. so i think we have to look at that on the front end rather than say what are we going to do after they're released. >> if you cut back on your right to get an education, education has been studied over and over again. more education you get, the less likely you are to come back denying somebody an education seems to be clearly counterproductive. >> absolutely. >> what about have you studied the implications of the right to vote in terms of recidivism? the project that the american bar association just completed looked into as a collateral consequence. again, i see no reason why someone is not restored to the right to vote. that is a to me a fundamental right, personally as well as the american bar association that should be respected and i think they should be restored. >> mr. jones, have you done any studies to show the impact on recidivism for any of these things i've mentioned? >> certainly when you disenfranchise you disenfranchise. and you want to enfranchise people. you don't want to take away their right to vote or their sense of participation in the democratic process. with respect to the money that the government spends on educating people to hold any kind of license to be a barber, for example, it makes no sense to educate someone and to give them a license to be a barber to pay for that and then when they get out, tell them they can't do that job. it's counterproductive and it absolutely leads to frustration and recidivism. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from the alabama, mr. bachus. >> thank you, mr. chairman. one statement here in mr. jones' testimony is even with conviction records, the well documented failure states record when charges are dismissed or records sealed and the failure of private data company to keep accurate records hurts millions of individuals. you know, that's a little separate situation, but is that a big problem too? >> that is a big problem, particularly when people are being denied opportunities without even having a conviction, merely the arrest is enough in many cases to deny a person the opportunity. certainly when records are not updated someone has received a certificate of relief from disability, someone has been pardoned, those things are not added to the record and are not known. it hurts the person right off the bat because all we're seeing is an arrest and many times not even an arrest that leads to conviction that is denying people opportunities. >> what if you know the fact act has certain strict regulations on what can be reported in a background check. is that violated and what's the process for combating that? do you know? or under the eeoc? >> it is frequently violated particularly in an age where you can get almost anything with a mouse click or a keystroke. so frequently, employers and other decisionmakers landlords are making decisions on less than accurate information and often inaccurate information. and really there needs to be much greater limited access to these records, much greater regulation over the records. opportunities for people to update and correct inaccurate information in their rap sheets, all of these things need much stricter guidelines limited access and an opportunity at no cost for people to correct mistakes in their conviction records or their rap sheets. >> well, do employers actually get the criminal record, criminal history? or do they -- or are they told whether or not the person meets a certain criteria? do you know? >> employers are actually given a person's rap sheet. they can actually -- they can buy them from consumer reporting agencies. in some cases they can get them directly for fee or not from law enforcement agencies. so the access an employer or the decisionmaker has to a person's complete criminal rap sheet is far too loose and easily available. >> all right. >> and they have them. >> i'm the co-sponsor of legislation with mr mr. sensenbrenner and others. mr. scott, i think, of the second chance act which helps state and local government agency and community organizations improve prisoner re-entry nationwide. do any of you have any comments on the second chance act and how it might help? >> well, again, i think with comments that have already been made, prosecutors around the country are certainly supporting and have started re-entry programs. i think it's so important. i think without looking up front of what's going to happen to an individual who it is sentenced to the penitentiary, knowing that that individual is going to come back into the community is just very -- it misses the entire point of what we're trying to do, trying to make productive citizens out of these individuals and help them. to just warehouse individuals as a prosecutor i can tell you, just warehousing individuals in the penitentiary it just makes no sense at all. i think we have to be smarter on crime, smarter on who is sentenced to the penitentiary and also to help, whether it's education, whether it's having someone to be help get a job, have employment, have housing when they're released. so i commend all of you for supporting that. >> nacdl certainly supports the second chance act. >> thank you. >> gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want you to know that i think this overcriminalization panel is one of the most important in the house judiciary committee. and what we're doing is working on ways to get this as much into the legislative mainstream as possible, and so we would welcome any thoughts that you have now or in the future about this. it's that critical. and after the votes this morning, in 2226 rayburn down the hall, we're going to have personal narratives of witnesses that have experienced some negative collateral consequences. so we wanted to invite not only you two distinguished lawyers but everyone here to join us, if you can. my first question to both of you is, how can we ramp this subject up as effectively and as thoughtfully as possible without overdoing it or creating a backlash or anything like that? if you have any thoughts on that, gentlemen? >> i do, thank you for the question. first of all, the collateral consequences of conviction project that was funded by the niha and just completed by the american bar association. this is a grant we got and many reasons because of senator leahy from vermont. a $750,000 grant. the american bar association because of the immense and the depth of this project invested another $750,000 of its money and just completed, again recognizing about 40,000 to 45,000 collateral consequences. what we would hope what the american bar association hopes is that congress and the states use this database that we have to identify all the different collateral sanctions or consequences throughout the country in the federal system. all right? and to look at them and say, how effective are they? how relevant are they? retool some. limit some. some have just been over broad or they've applied forever. and so they need to limit some of those. so we're hoping again that congress will take advantage of this monumental project that we've just completed. and maybe use it and we'll be glad to assist in any way possible. >> well, we intend to. now, what about going beyond the american bar? you know that there are dozens of law organizations and associations across the country. i'm thinking about widening our approach so that we can begin this discussion with them working off of the good initial work that you started. >> well, i appreciate the question. and again, i think your point is well taken. as a former president of the national district attorney's association, i know that district attorneys across the country are very concerned about this project and are very interested in what the results are that we just finished. i know we're going to be having conversations about this. i know state prosecutors associations are going to have and are always concerned about collateral sanctions. and the effect it has on not only the offender but on the community. >> you're giving prosecutors a great new description here. i always think of prosecutors as the bad guys that are trying to rack up convictions as many convictions with as many severe penalties as possible. i mean, i think that's -- i think this is an incredible of -- has there been some kind of turn around on the -- have we been making progress that we didn't know about or what? >> well, congressman, let me assure you that i can really believe i can speak not on behalf of the ndaa because i'm not the president. henry garza from texas is now. what i'm saying is, i think most of the prosecutors realize that. this idea of just putting people away, that may have been the thought of some prosecutors many years ago but that is really not the thought today. the thought today is be smarter on crime and to identify those individuals who must be prosecuted and are a threat to the community. >> how refreshing. could i get just a -- >> gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. >> thank you. and i appreciate your being here. i'm sorry i was late. this is a project that's near and dear to my heart and when ed meese called and asked if i would participate in something that dealt with the problem that i saw as a massive problem, overcriminalization, something that as a former prosecutor, judge, chief justice has driven me crazy, because i had seen, when people want to beat their chest and show how tough they are, well, let's slap a criminal penalty on something. and so as you know, we talked about there may be 5,000 or so crimes. they're not in 18 u.s. code where they ought to be as a criminal code. and i had wondered why in the world have we not been able to clean this mess up before. and what i'd heard is that it seems like every time a project gets fired up to try to clean up the criminal code, that it ends up being a big santa claus christmas bag and people start trying to throw more and more in it and then overall, you lose too many votes and people go, i can't agree to that. wait a minute. i love the idea. i was on board but now you've thrown that in the bag. i can't agree to that. and then it loses the impetus and nothing gets done over and over. and so that's one of my concerns as we go here. i hear from people going yeah, you're right. we've got to stop this overcriminalization and also we've got to the stop the militarization of many of these federal departments and you know, the epa doesn't need a s.w.a.t. team and neither does the department of education for heaven's sake. and we should never have, as we heard in this room, testimony about a poor little nerd that was trying to develop a new battery and he gets pulled over by three suburbans, run off the road, yanked out of his car, thrown down, boot in his back, handcuffed and drug off because he didn't put a sticker on a thing he mailed to alaska with an airplane with a line through it. he put ground only, checked that, but he didn't put the sticker. i mean we need to stop that. and so people are getting that and they're getting all on board and then when we start saying, well, we're also looking into whether or not maybe employers shouldn't be able to find out if you committed a crime before they hire you. oh, wait a minute. now, wait a minute. this is a very sensitive industry. and you're telling me i don't get to know if he's been stealing from his last job or in this daycare job, i don't get to know that this person has actually molested people in the past? and i can tell you as a judge, i had a case where because of the law trying to protect people, protected a child molester and it wasn't till he molested and destroyed other lives that he got stopped. and because of the way the law was, the juvenile probation department didn't even get to know that he had had these other incidences just because of the way he was pro-tented. so i'm really concerned that we may be getting into an area where we're going too far if we're not careful. we lose the steam because -- let me just ask you guys. why would it be appropriate for congress to force private businesses to ignore somebody's criminal history? >> i just want to be -- thank you for the question. i just want to be crystal clear about ban the box, right? because ban the box does not prevent an employer or other decisionmaker from knowing about a person's criminal record. right? there need to be clear relevancy guidelines that adhere across the board so that decisionmakers understand what's relevant and what's not when looking at a person's criminal record, and there also needs to be an opportunity for the individual to get his foot in the door to be able to present his credentials and his employability but once those things are done, once there are clear relevancy guidelines and decisionmakers know and once the person has had his foot in the door. then -- >> my time's about to expire. i want to get this question in. >> -- the employer has the ability -- >> isn't it true that those who access individual criminal histories are already subject to strict regulation regarding the use of that information under fair credit reporting act and equal employment opportunity commission? isn't that true? >> that's correct. >> so it's not just wide open already. >> i think there are safeguards. i think there are some abuses to it, no question about it. i understand what he's saying. i do think there are collateral consequences that are appropriate. >> okay, thank you very much. i yield back. >> the gentle woman from california, miss bass. >> thank you very much, mr. chair, and the ranking member for holding this hearing. i think this is such a critical issue for our nation. and earlier this year in my district, i had a town hall and we had several hundred people come talking about this very subject. and it seems like in our society, we used to have a belief that if you paid your debt to society, that you could can be reintegrated. and it seems like part of what has happened over the last couple decades is we no longer have that belief and in fact, you can spend sometime in prison, but then you can spend the rest of your life with the stigma and not being able to appropriately reintegrate. in california, when i was in the state legislature, we had a law that said if you were a felon, you could not get a license to be a barber. at the same time -- in our state prison system, we had a barbering program where we taught felons how to be barbers and then didn't allow them to have the license when they left. so we had to change that law and we had over 54 occupations that you couldn't do if you had been a felon. mr. jones, you mentioned that there should be a presumption of irrelevance and you know, the experience about ban the box i completely understand what you mean in terms of getting your foot in the door to even say that it was a conviction from 30 years ago. and it was when i was a college student or something like that because if you don't check that box and then you find out, then you're subject to immediate termination because you've lied. so when you were talking about a presumption of irrelevance, i wasn't sure if you were talking about that rhetorically or if you actually meant that's what we should do. then i wanted to know how we would go about that. >> well, well, thank you for the question. you know, there are -- there are studies that suggest that after a certain number of years, a person's conviction is -- a person is less likely -- is no more likely and in some cases less likely to reoffend than anybody in the general society. right? so when we're talking about evaluating a person's criminal record for whether or not they should be accessible to an really need to look at whether or not there is any relevance to the opportunity, what the passage of time has been, and whether or not there's any evidence of rehabilitation and when the passage of time has been such and there's evidence of rehabilitation, there really ought to be a resumption of irrelevance that the conviction is no longer relevant to whether or not this person ought to have that opportunity. >> and i agree with you, but how do you do that? is it a law? do we pass a law that says that? and then i'm assuming that you would exempt certain type of crimes. >> exactly. i think there have to be guidelines that are set out clearly for decision makers for employers and landlords and others. there have to be guidelines that clearly instruct individuals as to what's relevant and what's not and what the passage of time is and what the evidence of rehabilitation might be. so that people understand and know we're all playing by the same rules. once we have the same guidelines and playing by the same rules, then there ought be a presumption of irrelevance. >> one of you made reference to the fact that the fbi website is wrong a significant amount of time. and i wanted to know how it's wrong. is it the wrong people are listed, wrong charges are listed? >> well, i'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, ma'am, except to say that so many times when we have the silver streaks or we have the histories of convictions that many times people who put, input that data, that it is incorrect. and i think that not only. >> so it could be both the wrong charges and the wrong people. >> exactly. i find that when we're looking at defendants who we've charged in my office and my assistant prosecutors will try to get a record check, we have to make sure we confirm that to make sure it is accurate. many times the inputting of that data and the way it goes through our bureau of investigation identification is wrong. >> i have a piece of legislation i've introduced called the success act which is looking at a piece of collateral damage which says that young people who have a certain crime cannot get financial aid. and i'm wondering if in the tens of thousands of collateral damage examples that you two talked about, are there a number of them that relate to education? >> well, i think a lot of them do relate to education. either directly or indirectly. i think the idea of preventing young people who may have made a mistake from making amends from doing what they were supposed to do and then later in life restricting them from having the education that benefits not only them but society makes no sense at all. >> it's very difficult to make the argument that there's a public safety benefit from allowing young people to get an education. >> gentle woman's time has expired. the gentleman from new york, mr. jeffries. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and let me thank both of the witnesses for your system and for your work on this very important issue. let me start with mr. heck. you testified earlier today, i believe appropriately, that an automatic blanket across the board imposition of collateral consequences is counterproductive. in that regard, how would you suggest the committee look at or the task force look at how the collateral consequences that you believe may be appropriate in certain circumstances are narrowly tailored to fit the severity of the crime so that we don't broadly sweep into individuals into this blanket fashion? >> and i appreciate the question. i do think that some collateral consequences if they're applied so broadly across the board and not relevant to that individual case or that individual offender, that's what i don't think the law has been looking at, at the offender, not just the offense, for example, in ohio, if someone owes child support and they're not paying their child support, their driver's license is suspended. it's so ridiculous. i've told my prosecutors who handle those kinds of cases we are not going to ask for that. in fact, we're going to say it shouldn't be done because we're asking the person to pay child support and saying you can't have a job to pay it. i think we have to look at what the collateral consequence is because some are appropriate. >> when we craft a law, who should be given the discretion to make the determination as to the appropriate application of collateral consequence if one is appropriate under limited circumstances? should it be the court, should there be built into the law in some way? should the prosecutor have in the first instance have that opportunity? i don't know that everyone is as enlightened as you are or the prosecutors in your office? who should have that opportunity to make the determination. >> there have been a lot of suggestions made on that. i believe, not the aba, that it should be the court. i think the judges are in a unique position to see what's going on and that they should make the judgment. >> mr jones, your thoughts on that? >> yeah, i think that everybody in the system needs to be aware, educated, updated. prosecutors, defense counsel, everybody needs to understand at every step of the process, the implication of collateral consequences as we go through the process i do think relief at sentencing by the judges who are able to tailor to the individual and remove and repeal consequences that are of no moment and are irrelevant is a good thing. so i believe relief at sentencing is important. i think all the players in the system ought to be aware at every step along the way of their consequences and packet. >> both of you mentioned in your testimony there were 45,000 collateral consequences which is a staggering number. so that's a difficult undertaking but one that obviously is necessary and i think we as a task force have to think through how to create greater transparency as it relates to those consequences and obviously take steps in my opinion to reduce many of them. but you mentioned that 68 million people in america i guess are living with convictions. is that right? >> that's right. that number is growing. >> and that 20 million of those individuals have felony convictions which mathematically i gather would leave 48 million with misdemeanor convictions or criminal violations in some way, shape, or form. now, if we are to look at this issue in terms of collateral consequences, has any work been done to look at the consequences associated to those convicted of felonies versus the consequences associated with those convicted of misdemeanors? and is it relevant for us to think through this issue in that fashion? >> well, i think that even just looking at some of the legislation that's proposed, certainly there always is this notion that, you know, first time offenders, nonviolent misdemeanents are more often the subject of legislation, but the fact of the matter is that at some point, everybody's coming home, right? the vast majority of these folks are coming home, and we need to be thinking about and incorporating and be prepared to embrace all of these folks because nobody is merely the product of the worst thing that they've ever done and we all deserve a second chance. so i would strongly suggest that as you think about how to set these guidelines and evaluate relevance, that you include everybody. including those 20 million living with the conviction. >> the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. we need to reject demonization of every person who has a brush with the criminal law. persons released from prison should be given a second chance and we need to enter into a new age of restoration and redemption. these are things that are listed in your conclusion, mr. jonas. and i think that those are very important ideals. that we should seek to live up to. often times, it is we ourselves that are the perpetrators of overcriminalization. certainly the legislators are responsible. and certainly judges and prosecutors who are elected are responsible for, you know, getting tough on crime and throwing the book at people. and implementing the policies that we enshrine into law. but i will ask you both, you're both members of the bar. you're both attorneys. you're licensed to practice law and you know that when a person suffers a felony conviction and even misdemeanor convictions in many states, they are barred from being able to license practice law. do you believe that those types of barriers, which are collateral consequences, you believe that those should be removed from person's ability to practice law, to get a license? mr. heck? >> i think like any other collateral situation, they have to look at all element. in ohio, someone was convicted and removed. someone convicted of manslaughter has become a lawyer. we have seen where someone is convicted of a theft or fraud
agriculture issues, but talk about what it was to be an american, what it was like to be free and experience the types of opportunities that we have in america. so i understand why families want to come to the united states and experience that american dream. but we are a nation of immigrants, and we are also a nation of laws. so we do need to enforce the existing laws, but i believe we also need to secure the border. that needs to be done first. i see it as more than just an immigration issue, but also one of national security. >> we've had lengthy questions here. i'll give you a real brief question now. ms. ernst, is there any scenario that you would support raising taxes on iowa voters? >> no. i believe that we can find ways to make our government more efficient without raising taxes on our hardworking iowans. i would like to see our iowans keeping more of their tax dollars in their own pockets so that they can save for their children's college education, so they can pay their bills, so they can buy a home. all of those wonderful things that we would like to see iowans do. here in the state of iowa, i implemented one of the largest tax cuts with the leadership of governor terry branstadt. as a matter of fact, it was the largest tax cut, and we are saving iowans $4.4 billion over the next 10 years. this is just one part of our greater economic plan, which also includes reducing job killing rules and regulations and balancing the budget, which we have done here in iowa for the past four years. >> would you consider raising the cap on social security tax? as a tax? >> it is an option that can be discussed out there, but i think we have better options that we can look at. >> well, senator ernst may think there are better options, but you gave her the opportunity to explain them tonight and she didn't. and the thing that i will tell you is that right now one of our biggest problems is we provide tax incentives to corporations that ship u.s. jobs overseas, so i would eliminate those tax incentives, and that would cause the taxes for some of those corporations to go up, tim. i think most iowa voters can accept that reality because they want a tax system that is fair for people in the working class. now, senator ernst has expressed support for a tax change to the way we currently tax people. she has expressed support for 23% national sales tax. that would dramatically increase the tax burden on working class families. it would be added to the existing 6% sales tax you pay, meaning that you would be paying almost 40% on every dollar you spend in sales taxes. and she has talked about that as an option she's willing to consider. i won't. >> he mentioned several points there. ms. ernest, go ahead. >> i do believe we need to lower taxes on our hardworking iowans immediately. immediately. which is something we have done with this tax cut that we have implemented here in iowa. but then work over the long term to reform our tax system. i say scrap the irs. let's start all over again. we need a tax that is fair, flatter, and simpler. again, we do need to find an option. and i am willing to sit down. we need to have bipartisan support on this. but let's make life better for hardworking americans. we can't tax them to death. my opponent, congressman braley, that seems to be the answer for everything is higher taxes and more spending. we can't keep doing that to our hardworking iowans. >> senator ernst's answer to everything is scrap it. scrap the irs. get rid of it. get rid of the department of education. get rid of the epa. get rid of the clean water act. every solution she has is throwing darts at the board, trying to get rid of programs that have had significant impacts and made a difference in the lives of iowans. so she wants to get the federal government out of the student loan business. what would that mean? it would mean 230,000 iowans who depend on those student loans. by privatizing them, their interest rates would skyrocket and their lives would be much worse off. i don't think the solution to all of these problems is to scrap things. i think the solution is to find problems, fix them, and make sure that iowans have clean water, clean air, and that they have the ability to get the educations that they deserve. >> yes or no, would you raise tax? >> excuse me? >> yes or no, would you raise the tax? >> i already said that i think that employers who shift jobs overseas shouldn't get the tax benefits they are getting right now and their taxes would go up. >> thank you. >> can i address that? yes, when it comes to taxing and spending, i would say the congressman has made his positions very clear. over the eight years that he has served in congress, he has voted eight times to raise our national debt ceiling. the national debt has doubled in the time that he has been in congress. this is immoral. we are passing on a debt to our children and grandchildren. my daughters' share of the national debt is $50,000. we can't keep spending the way we are. i don't believe in a bloated federal bureaucracy. we need to return a lot of that power to the states because iowans know what is best. iowans are working for iowans our way is working. washington, d.c. is not. >> thank you both. it's been a quick hour i guess we could say here for some parts. we've had a pretty good discussion. we appreciate you joining us around the table tonight. thank you for the answers to our questions. >> thank you. as we wind down this hour-long discussion we want the candidates to share their closing thoughts with the viewers who are shaping their voting decisions as we speak. mr. braley, you have the first word. ms. ernst, you have the last. start with your closing thoughts please. >> thanks, amanda. congress isn't working right now, and part of the reason is because of partisan gridlock. one of the reasons for that gridlock is people who aren't willing to work together to get things done. i'm a bridge builder, not a bridge burner. i have a proven record of working with republicans to improve the lives of iowans. iowans have been blessed to have two senators over the last 30 years, chuck grassley and tom harkin, who, even though they don't agree on everything, have been able to put those differences aside to advance an agenda that's helpful to iowa. as your next senator, i'm going to follow in tom harkin's foot step. i've worked with chuck grassley on things like protecting and preserving the renewable fuel standard. i've worked with chuck grassley to try to protect the wind energy tax credit which has transformed the landscape of iowa and created thousands of good-paying jobs. as your next senator i'm going to get up every morning thinking about what i can do to make your lives better, and i'm going to focus on economic policies that are going to strengthen the middle class because that's what iowans have always depended upon, whether it's in agriculture, education, energy, our economy has been based on hardworking iowans who get up every day and do what's necessary to get the job done. as your senator, that's exactly what i'm going to do. i'm going to work hard to make sure that your lives are better. i'm here tonight to ask for your help. i'm here tonight to ask for your vote. thank you. >> thank you. ms. ernst, your final thoughts? >> thank you so much to our hosts this evening. it has been a pleasure to be here with you. thank you, congressman, very much for joining me on this stage. tonight i think you have seen very clear differences in this race. i am not a washington politician. i grew up on my family farm in southwest iowa. i am a mother. i am a soldier. i am an independent leader who cares very deeply about the nation that we are leaving our children and grandchildren. i don't support congressman braley's policies, president barack obama's policies of higher taxes, more spending, obamacare, amnesty -- the list goes on and on. congressman braley has a failed record in washington. because of that he is running the most negative campaign that iowans have ever seen, but i believe in the iowa way. i know iowans know what is best for iowa more than politicians in washington, and if you trust me with your vote on november 4, i will fight hard for middle class stories so they have better paying jobs. i will work for the thousands of iowans facing higher health care costs because of obamacare. i will protect social security and medicare for our seniors because they have sacrificed so much that our families can reach for the american dream. i will fight washington, to change washington, to make sure more americans can achieve that american dream as your next senator. >> thank you both for being here tonight. >> our political coverage does not stop after tonight's debate. we are going to be online. go to weareiowa.com and siouxlandmatters.com for political coverage as we draw to less than 20 days to election day. >> we thank those in the audience tonight. we also thank you at home that have watched this evening. you can continue to contribute by going to those websites and as we head toward election day. from eppley auditorium on the campus of morningside college in sioux city, iowa, thanks for joining us. good night. >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. race in georgia. carter,eal and jason the grandson of president jimmy carter. here is a look at some of the ads voters are seeing. >> senator jason carter claims he will put education first, but phone is against the largest increase in education funding in seven years. educationl increased by $538 million this year. >> yet seen the worst contraction of public education in the history of our state. you have 9000 fewer teachers. if 45,000 people leave our technical schools and have not come back. soorry we will reap what we from that destruction of our education. and i'm governor, we will have a separate budget for education and we will protect that not just in the good times, but all the time. >> i wrote the law to stop illegal aliens from receiving taxpayer-funded health care, and voted against obamacare. liberals will not like it when i empower local law enforcement to deport illegal aliens. illegal aliens are costing georgia taxpayers over $1 billion every year. my concern is you. >> negative ads from nathan deal. the truth? jason carter is a fiscal conservative who never voted for a tax increase. he will fund schools first and put an end to paying for projects withpet education dollars. today we have 9000 fewer fewer technical college students. nathan deal, shortchanging education, and our kids are paying the price. >> republican governor nathan deal running for a second term. an average of recent polls show deal ahead by 2%. we will have their latest bait tonight at 8:00 on c-span. technology in the 2014 campaign. >> his turkey the digital tools were largely thought of as e-mail tools and online contributions, the website, but i think it has even all that -- our company, for example, also enables tools that enable the shoe leather side of the campaign, the canvassing, phone calling, direct mail. then i think you're seeing more marketing channels, online or person-addressable tv and online ads, and you can do person-addressable directions through social networks. i think now there is a pretty wide swath of things you can call digital. >> we have moved from the broadcast era. we are at the tail end of what we is known as from the early 1960's, where broadcast television has dominated. as we evolve into addressable television, it is moving into relationship era. we have known that in the commercial sector that if you are going to -- when you build brand advocates, have someone who is advocating for and influence to their friends, how do we move from just knowing not only the messages, because we have gotten good at the message, we need to do a better job of knowing who the right messenger is to deliver that message. >> tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span2. here are a few of the comments we've recently seized from viewers. haggling my local cable provider in new jersey for over 18 months now to start offering c-span in high definition. >> i have never done anything like this before, but i thoroughly enjoyed this program. channel,e history where i live, in naples, florida, and i thought this was absolutely really magnificent. i just sat glued to my chair for the whole hour, and i will continue to turn back to this program again. our just wanted to first on allowing c-span -- first start off by allowing c-span to know that i do not watch any other channel on my cable selection decides this. c-span2, c-span3, and i appreciate you for your services there and your ability to really keep it mixed up and keep it lively. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. or you canmail us, send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. >> live today c-span will be at the national press club for march by labor secretary thomas jobs, who will talk about and economy. live at 1:00 eastern time. for we hear from secretary perez, here is a look at campaign spending strategy as that november 4 elections come close. host: our guest is cameron joseph. about campaign fundraising and spending in these last couple of weeks. thank you for joining us. and one thing that caught our attention most recently is some news out of control, the democratic citadel senatorial campaign. guest: they're spending a ton of money there. and the fact that they're cutting bait there shows that they really don't think grimes can beat mcconnell. they're going under a mode that they're starting to look at any possibility of getting other opportunities in the state, in the country and in kentucky doesn't look promising to them. they've been arguing all year that it was going to be a close race there. it's still going to be close race but they don't see a path to victory. host: if not kentucky, where would the money go? guest: they're not just retrenching. they're going after south dakota, which is a state that for more than a year, they basically said they didn't have a chance in. but all of a sudden, the former governor is having some issues with some former ethics issues and scandals that are popping up that are hurting his numbers a little there. so that's little more of a hail mary, but they're putting a million dollars between tv and ground operation. in georgia is getting really interesting. host: one of our guest's recent piece here, a democrat leading in the georgia senate race. guest: this is a race that democrats have really been hopeful for about, why republicans are so threatened and there's no chance. georgia is a conservative state. it's a republican state. but it's a state that the democratics are trending towards democrats. white folks aren't as conservative. and michelle nunn is a candidate i feel good about. she worked with george h.w. bush for a charity. it's still a hard nut to crack. but david purdue has gotten in trouble. they found a deposition in 2005 where they asked him what do you do, basically. tell us about your outsource thing. and he said, yeah, that was an instant ad about them. he said he was proud of his career. he didn't handle it great off the bat. so michelle nunn's going to have to beat him by a couple of points. at the very worst it's going to be a runoff. host: we'll put the phone numbers on the bottom of your screen. you can weigh in by social media. there are the numbers on the screen there for our guests. and we're talking specifically about the money piece of this spending in the last several weeks to the campaign. our guest has written several recent pieces, and one of the events headlines, cam says, national g.o.p. predicts senate victory. but what are they pointing to specifically? >> to the fact that a lot of polls in these red states are fighting really hard places and are starting to look very good for them. they've had a little bit of a lead in the polls recently in colorado. so things do seem to be trending the republicans' ray right now. democrats can afford to lose five seats, not six. there's seven seats set in states that mitt romney won. and georgia was a promising place. host: and plug the money back into this. and another headline from our guest. rnc is are sending money to target the senate and the house. where else specifically? guest: well, some of the interesting states, iowa and colorado. and for a long time, democrats are saying we're going to be hold one or two seats but they can't expend the map. republicans have prove it. iowa is the state that determines the whole thing. and that's a really close race between ernst and braley. brayley had a couple of gaffs early in the campaign that's really hurt him. he hasn't made any mistakes since then. but iowa is going to be a state that we're watching closely here. host: we have an ad involving the race that our guest just talked about. it's a dssc ad attacking a republican in iowa regarding abortion. here's a look. [video clip] >> i've been a nurse on the sexual assault response team. i've seen lots of cases. many of them are very brutal. it breaks your heart. i'll never understand politicians who make it harder. one outlaud abortion even for rape and incest. she banned a right to choose. absolutely brutalized. joni ernst has no idea what people like this go through. host: want to add anything to that? guest: what they're trying to do, ernst was endorsed by sarah palin, linked the two of them together. ernst is a affable person. she's a warm personality. they're trying to tear her apart on the issues. she's very conservative. they're not having as much success at this point. host: we have plenty of calls, lots more as for this segment. domingo is calling from springfield garden from new york. where is that? caller: queens, new york. host: go ahead, sir. you are on the air. caller: yes. hello? host: hello? caller: queens, new york. host: domingo, you are on the air. go ahead and say what you like to say. caller: ok. what i would like to say is everybody, one -- host: going to let you go, caller. clay is calling from biloxi, mississippi. go ahead, clay. caller: yes, probably since the supreme court decision allowing the contributions by corporations unlimited and just caller souring the democratic process. thank you. guest: there is a lot of money floating in right now and you're seeing some of these outside groups spending very heavily. one of the interesting things on the outside is they poured a ton of money on the house races. the official democratic party arm to reentrench and hoping for they've got to be expensive to protect their incumbents. host: talk to us about the party committees. you've already brought up some staggering figures. guest: yeah, a lot. this is the biggest spending in terms of history. and i think we're just going to see that at every election. we're going to see more money than the previous election. and what we've seen this year is the democrats, the official campaign committee has done very well. the democratic senatorial committee have raised a lot of money than their republican counterparts. the tradeoff is some of these super pacs are spending a lot more. and democrats have spent a lot more on ground operation. but wherever you are, you've got to be really tired of the ads by now. host: you are a contributor to a recent piece by jessica taylor who writes for "the hill." talk about some of the winners, republican corey gardner in the colorado race. talk about his situation. >> he's raised a lot of money and he was a candidate that republicans wanted for a very long time. they went back later when things are starting to look worse. and then he said i will take a lot of this. mark udall is in trouble. gardner outraised him and brought in a lot of money. and i don't think either side is going to have a problem getting enough people out in the field there. we're getting to a point where it's saturation level in any competitive race. gardner and ernst are two challengers who have very good quarters. and the two of them are really proving that money chases momentum. and republican donors are feeling very confident about the two of them. >> you have kay hagan, the north north carolina, the big senate race there. tell us more. >> so these democrats have really been struggling. hagan has been able to hold a small but sturdy lead in the poll. but the reason why she was able to hold that lead, but thom is struggling with fundraising. he is the state house speaker, and he was a little bit of a tough time balancing his day job and his actual job, fundraising. some republicans think he should top back from it. she's been able to parlay that into more ads and keep the focus on him. that's starting to shift about isis and ebola, moving back to foreign policy where he's stronger. it's an area -- a lot of people are surprised that she's had a lead and it's because of the money. host: "washington post" touches on that and makes a topic on the headline. security issues recast for senate north carolina. they're talking about security, about isis, but also about ebola. guest: yeah. host: speak about ebola for a second. will that play a big role two weeks from now? guest: it's hard to tell exactly what the role will be. it's one of those things that a lot of americans aren't feeling great about the direction of the country. we're seeing the return of fear politics. we've seen some scares about the border, isis, and ebola. and it's one of those things where folks are just getting a little nervous and folks are starting to wonder whether president obama is doing everything he can or should be doing. some of these folks who don't pay quite as much attention of the politics and we're seeing the headlines and we see isis and ebola getting a lot of attention in the midterm. host: ross from columbus, ohio. we've got the phones back. ross, you are a democrat. go there. caller: i would like to address the question of united states calls itself a true democracy and we you have this much money influencing politics, i don't understand how you can have a true democracy where you have the kind of money noting around in both parties. they do influence a lot of decisions. i would like your guest to address this question. we are not a true democracy. we have this kind of money deciding a lot of issues. and also, i would like to make a comment on the ebola outbreak. there's a lot of suspicion around the fact that the ebola germ or virus itself was invented the laboratory. i would like for you to try to clear that up. a lot of people saying the same thing about aids. always blame it on the monkeys, but you never see thousands of monkeys laying around dead. thank you. host: let's stick to the money piece of this. anything on the first part of his comment that you want to respond to? guest: it's clear how we do politics in america. and it's made donors more important. it's made big donors more important. and i think there's some frustration on every side about how much time folks have to spend fundraising. when you talk to the average congressmen, if they're in a tough district race, four six hours a day for fundraising. and so people start wondering why it's hard to get anything done up here. and when someone who is supposed to be legislating has to spend that much time keeping themselves in the office and they try to spend that much time focusing on what they're elected to do, they start losing their races. some of the folks who aren't in that fundraising having to be bailed out by the committees or losing their race. i think this is a lot of pressure to raise money. but i think it's exceedingly higher now. host: centerville, massachusetts, hello there. caller: good morning, guys. host: good morning. caller: i can't possibly believe that in america today this they can get on tv and say that these races that these republicans are in are close. and if they are close and with this decision that happened this past weekend with the supreme court in texas with this suppression of the vote, and down in georgia or south carolina where they lost 80,000 voters' applications, i smell fraud basically. but be it as it may, the fact that the american people allow these people to continue to spout this stuff on that level. they should -- american people, please wake up. something is going on and it stinks. host: i think it brings an interesting point, and georgia specifically. democrats have registered a lot of people down. about 40,000 have not made on to the rolls yet. they've now got a lawsuit at the georgia secretary of state about what happened of those votes and there is voter fraud in terms of the registering of voters saying they're not valid. so in a close race like that when you're talking about 40,000 new voters, most of them democrats, that could be a big difference. we start seeing the imaginations of registering voters and these legal arguments and voter i.d. is a big deal in north carolina. the supreme court just upheld that law. if 10,000 or 20,000 aren't able to vote or not, that could be make a big difference. whether these laws are intended to toward electoral impact, they are going to be. host: he's cam joseph and contribute to the blog and morning publication. previously, "national journal" and got a degree in government. and we have another ad we want to show folks. this is a race in new york and a republican who is running against the incumbent. this is a dccc ad hitting an opponent for opposition to abortion. [video clip] >> they even want to overturn roev wade. he wants to outlaw abortion and deny coverage for common forms of birth control. he's in step with right wing republicans and congress but out of step with new york values. the democratic campaign committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. >> democrats are leaning hard into this. the colorado senate race is focused almost exclusively on women's issues and not just abortion but healthcare coverage to the point where one of the moderators during one of the debates referred to senator mark udall as mark "uterus." and a lot of these house races you just saw democrats are looking to leverage the women's vote in. what they're feeling is it's harder to turn out the minority voters in off years like this. women voters tend to turn out and they're aimed at the young mothers recently married suburban women. host: we're starting to touch on some of the issues in the race, but viewer wants to bring it back to money and ask -- why is this race defined by money and not ideas? >> there's just a lot of money out there. i mean, i think there are ideas being discussed. we're not really seeing a national message, and it's kind of a campaign about nothing and each individual race and each individual district is on whatever the local issues are. but the money is national and no longer local races. it's never been a case that it's been local. house races, even when we look at down ballot races, it tends to drive the conversation. host: bruce, thank you for waiting. you're on the republican line. hey, bruce. caller: hello, thank you. i watched the commercial from iowa. i watched the one in new york. i'm not sure how it's pronounced, but i don't see any counter. both of these pertaining to the abortion issue. is c-span making a political statement itself this morning? do you get money from the federal government to make these political stands? if you do, i think it's time to be stopped. that's all. host: well, we do not, bruce. do you have anything about any of the races for my guest? >> i like to see a little more balance in some of these commercials you're putting on this morning. if you show one from one side show one from another side. host: we have plenty more coming. let's go to bill in new york. bill, you there? where are you? >> it's 10 miles south of the canadian border. host: got it. caller: how do you fix the money problem in politics? >> i think that's an open question and difficult to do. they got things through about a decade ago with the kind of rare bipartisan coalition, and the supreme court struck down a big part of that with citizens united that said free speech is free speech and money equals speech. without a constitutional amendment, it's difficult to do that, and republicans have dug in and said they don't think that's a good idea. i don't see it happening unless this is a major shift in the political dialogue. host: let's talk to cedric on the republican line. cedric, you there? caller: yes, i'm here. what i wanted to say democrats are desperate and i've noticed they're running a scorched-earth campaign. the only chance to compete is tkepl mondayize the republicans. i think the sleeping giant has awaken which is the american people. they're able to connect all of what's going on in the country to the democrat party, and the race card is not going to work this time. i don't think black americans are liking these policies. they're not benefiting from these policies. so it's going to be a big problem. host: thanks for calling. guest: i do think that this is some truth to the negative campaigns we've seen this year in a couple of places. we've seen just hard negative campaigns from democrats. colorado specifically. we saw some statistics. 75% to 80% of the ads are negative. right now it's all about base turnout where you won't a lot of independents making up their minds in the last minute talking about getting your voters to the polls. being scared gets you to the polls quicker than being happy. host: 75%, is that higher in elections? guest: it's higher than what we've seen because you have to kind of like the candidate if you're going to vote. we see folks who don't vote in other elections who aren't going to be driven by fear. but when we're talking about the base and at midterm things get nastier and you're trying to get as many voters out that are already on your side that might not be feeling it this time around. that's why we're seeing things so negative. host: the nrcc's ad is being called a willy horton style ad. >> four murders in 11 days. and the judge decides niko jenkins is responsible for all of them. >> released early after serving only half. he's a poster child for why the good time law is a farce. the national republican congressional committee is responsible for the advertising. >> i think it shows in that district republicans are running a little scared. their congressman lee terry had some missteps along the way. he's not particularly well liked and part of that is during the shutdown he complained about folks asking him to give back the government pay, and that has not played very well. democrats have really burned in the quote that he used and even though it's a republican leading district, that's one area where they're nervous. generally if you see something that negative it's not a good sign. we saw one in alaska who ran a similar ad that the family of the folks that had been killed that had been around that issue complained about it, and that hurt him. that threw him off kilter. generally if you see things that nasty, it means you're not winning. host: to the hill's list of campaign cash winners and losers. loser side, mark pryor. tell us more. >> he's been running a very tough race all year. it's hard to win as a democrat in arkansas right now. the president's approval rating is in the low 30%'s in arkansas. mark pryor has a family name. he's well liked. but there's just this thing on him. and tom cotton hasn't run a perfect campaign, but he's raised a lot of money. that's one of the seats that republicans are feeling best about winning. democrats are hoping the ground game will be turned around. i'm not sure if that's where the race is. host: pryor, $2.2 million to $3.8 million for cotton. and first district house race in arizona where republican andy tobin is running. >> he was the establish pick. sometimes it's hard to turn on that money spigot. there was a tea party candidate that divided the party. it's a very large district and has a lot of native american populations and intensely republican. she may be facing a little bit of this real problem democrats have of turning out their base in this case native americans. that's the bigger driver. the candidates matter but what really matters when the american national network pour as money in. host: when were campaign ads not negative? guest: before tv. it's always been. remember back to lyndon johnson campaign and the nuclear bomb going off. that's the original scare ad. just seeing the newsletters going back and forth since the founding. they've gotten more negative but this has been going on since the dawn of time. host: the people say they hate negative ads, but they don't vote. thank you for waiting. hey, there. caller: thank you for taking my call. i don't think the democrats policy-wise feel any necessity of trying to use the tack of demonizing the republican party because it's done enough on its own in terms of secrecy and policy-making ventures and other things within the administrative political infrastructure to demonize themselves. guest: i think there's an interesting trend going on right now. no one likes anyone in d.c. especially if you've been in d.c. for a while, it's not like you can point to any party your in and so we're seeing negative campaigns because people don't have much to brag about. host: our guest had this byline over the weekend. guest: there is so much outside money coming in right now it's hard to register how much it will make. but democrats outraged republicans early. they had a lot more money and what they decided everyone will have enough ads but what we'll try to do is break this and we break this and we always struggle in the midterms, and try to turn out they're voters and they spread a lot of money on boots on the ground and spent about $60 million already and probably higher once the campaign is over. every time their incumbent falls behind they say, we can win this and i think it's starting to pay dividends. host: hey there. dorothy, baltimore. caller: i was wanting to ask the reporter a couple of questions. one being about policy. like you said, a lot of fundraising, commercials, negativity and all of that. what about policies? even the media is not asking me politicians what are you going to do when you get in for real and be specific, especially with social security and medicare. we know what reform means to republicans. as a reporter, i would like to ask you one quick question. after you are hearing republicans call up and talk about the i.r.s. scandal, you can say honestly, has there ever been a document presented that linked the white house to the i.r.s. scandal, any document? would you please tell me if that happened? guest: sure. on social security and medicare part it's clear this both sides are using this as a scare issue. democrats have been running on this for years now. the ryan budget includes fundamental changes to both programs, and democrats have been running hard on that and republicans always responded. democrats argue it was cost- saving measures and put back in the program so. there's been a lot of back and forth on that and that's really a scare tactic on both sides that they've been using which i think the more they use it as a scare tactic the less anyone will want to touch it. i think republicans kind of stuck their neck out in policy and it hurt them. democrats have been the same way with obamacare. i don't think of it especially as a divided city you will see major changes in either one of those programs. doesn't mean they'll continue to work while some argue they aren't as sustainable as others. looking at the i.r.s. we're hearing more in conservative media than mainstream media. i'm not sure how much is driving the conversation. but it was the first major drop in the bucket of kind of the scandal city that we've been seeing. i think that was the kind of the turning point for folks to look at the obama administration closely and they had a couple of slip-ups. host: we have 10 minutes left with our guest cam joseph. we started about talking about kentucky, and explain for us the process of moving money away or in or around. how do the parties decide who is deciding at the parties, how does that process work? >> because of the remnants of the mccain-feingold campaign finance laws, this is a wall between the normal committee, the folks who are talking to us, the folks who are putting on press releases and the independent expenditure sides and those guys are making their own decisions in terms of where to spend money. sometimes you'll hear about this, oh, this race looks really promising, and then you see the same committee do the opposite thing because of the weird wall. because usually the money is going in and out. because people are placing big bets and they don't do that lightly. if you see a campaign dumping a lot of money in the last minute or investing early, that means they're serious or at least trying to force the other side to spend heavily there. generally, there is a lot of talk. as you get closer you see reservations come in and then reservations start to move. usually if campaigns are moving money into a race, it's getting hotter and more contested. really following money is a better way to monitor what's going on than talking to some of these operatives. >> travis is calling from elgin, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning, sir. gentlemen, thank you. what i just wanted to bring up is that the government unions taking money from government workers by courthouse employees and everybody making very little money is the same as corporations donating money. there is absolutely no difference, as we saw in the last presidential election. president obama had more money spent on his campaign towards advertisement than mitt romney did. also, just real quick, texas should be completely taken out of election campaigns. this is ridiculous. you know how much money we could make in our country just by taking the tax money that could be put upon spending on donations? i don't know. it seems really obvious to me that there's a difference between giving money to donating to a cancer treatment than there is to a politician who is going become the bad little boy mark twain talked about. thank you. host: thanks for calling. guest: well, i think that the point about campaign contributions is interesting, but looking at -- there's clearly come complaints on both sides. republicans aren't happy about union money coming into elections and did he regular deregulated by the supreme court. it's going to be very hard to undo. they're kind of feeling like we've seen union rates dropping rapidly across the country even in some of the strongholds. scott walker in wisconsin, republicans love and democrats hate because of of his union busting techniques. you see unionization dropping quickly in wisconsin. they're gunning for him. rick schneider in michigan -- are two races where they spent a lot of money. democrats are upset about them. >> before bigger stage walker must win wisconsin. you're mentioning the wisconsin governor. we had the debate on this friday and the friday before as well. this is a "new york times" piece. a picture of him here in a tight re-election race saying, here they're making the main point that he needs to win re-election if he has a national agenda in mind. this is in "the new york times" today. we want to show you one more ad, back at the senate. the ad takes a shot at senator hagan which is not showing up for her work. [video clip] >> being an effective senator starts with showing up. but kay hagan skipped half of public meetings and admitted missing a classified hearing on isis to hold a fund-raiser in new york city and shares a subcommittee on emerging threats, but hasn't held a single public hearing on isis. does kay hagan deserve reelection? guest: that's something we've seen in a lot of races. truancy politics. the dirty little secret is a lot of politicians miss hearings, democrat or republican, often folks show up and give their statement and leave. especially if you're cycle you have to raise a ton of money and that time could be used better raising money andsying on the phone where people are talking about points and you're not always getting new information. we have seen it in north carolina and colorado and iowa and new hampshire as well. in north carolina we've seen that a little bit. kay hagan has been hit for that. but then she points out, she told him to vacate his job leading the house majority and the legislature because he missed so much to fundraise. it's one of the unfortunate realities of politics today that folks spend a lot more time fundraising than doing their job. host: i want to throw this on the table. but gas prices are down quite a bit. guest: i think that folks -- when the economy starts to improve people turn to other things. usually a down spiral in the economy is a problem. you don't get credit if the economy is doing better while your party is in control. frankly i think a lot of people even though the economy is recovering are still not feeling it. there's a lot of indicators especially in some of the states that we're fighting in, they're not feeling that great and they're saying, if the economy's recovering, why aren't we doing better. host: let's hear from andy in south carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to comment. i'm 34 years old, and i've given caller a total of $2,000 to $2,500 to political campaigns. i'm a small, regular joe, and, boy, i tell you i have been turned off this election cycle and i haven't given any money due to the e-mails and the phone calls and the actual physical mailings from i guess republican fund-raisers. they hit you hard. host: what motivated you in the past to send money? caller: well, i mean, i just thought it was my civic duty, i guess, to support -- i couldn't give a lot, but a little to people. civic duty, i guess. host: sounds like you had enough now it sound like? caller: it's almost too much, but i'll probably end up giving but it's the barrage of -- host: thank you, andy. guest: i think that's a lot of voters experience. the only way to avoid all these fundraising e-mails is really to give as much as legally as possible so they'll start leaving you alone. even then it doesn't work. during fundraising i can't find my e-mails. you can see them tick by, it's like twitter. a lot of folks are having that experience of where we're seeing the advent of a lot of new technology to raise money as well as everything else, and with the amount of super pac money coming in, the campaigns are feeling the need to step up the game. they're being frankly obnoxious because they know it works. host: what are you looking to tell you where things might be? guest: it's interesting. i think there's about 10 races that's we've been talking all cycle and started narrowed them in to 7 or 8 that we think will determine control. a lot of these places you can't buy more advertising. in arkansas where there's a senator race, in the little rock district is now extensive to buy a tv ads like los angeles. so little rock is like l.a. and democrats did raise more money both the incumbents and committees and they were able to lock rates a little lower. and the dollar amounts aren't -- but you see republicans bank twice as much and there won't be any short of that. if you're sick of it, mute yoru tv for the next couple of weeks. host: let's hear from clyde. go ahead. caller: good morning. how you guys? host: we're doing well. what would you like to say? caller: all these money going into these campaigns and everything. i don't see why they can't raise people's social security. we only get 2% this year or less. and another thing, all that money that they're putting in campaigns, they could be donating that to cancer, and some of these other businesses. host: another sentiment there. we're hearing a lot of folks sick of the money and the advertising. the in the tell.iting host: way the game is structured right new. you can't necessarily blame the players forfeiting in the tell. host: cam joseph is the political reporter for the hill. >> thank you for having me. for remarks from thomas perez on jobs and the economy. he will take questions from reporters. the national press club is the leading professional organization for journalists, committed to our future and programming with events like this, while fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, please visit our website, at press.org. on behalf of our members worldwide, i would like to welcome our speaker. and those of you attending today's event. our head table includes working journalists who are club members. -- members ofber the general public are attending as well, and he replies is not an indicator of lack of journalistic integrity. you can follow the action on twitter. after the guests speech concludes, we will have a question and answer period. i will ask his many questions as time permits. now it is time to introduce our guest. i would like each of you to stand briefly as your name is announced. thomas sanchez. jimmy labbe. michelle jim briscoe, u.s. economy reporter at bloomberg news. matthew cuddy, washington bureau chief of cnbc command guest of our speaker. susan page, washington bureau chief, usa today. tom trainor, district supervisor, market basket supervisors, and guess of our speaker. -- guest of our speaker. buffalo news, washington bureau chief. speakersof the abc committee and a former president of the national press club. speaker, alison fitzgerald, senior investigative reporter and project manager at the center for public integrity and nbc board member and organizer of today's luncheons. thank you. noah, with politico command guest of our speaker. 's nests editor of npr, and an npc board number. jennifer, president of respectability usa.org. our guest today has been the subject of rumor and speculation. [laughter] for the last two weeks, since his name surfaced as a favorite to replace eric holder as attorney general. for now at least, thomas perez is still the secretary of labor. since being confirmed by the senate in july of 2013, perez has been everywhere. bananas,n, eating and in memphis, and meeting with unemployed workers in cleveland yet another. every first friday of month, he is all over the airways talking about the nation's falling unemployment rate. when he is here in town, he is likely to be spotted at nationals park. been traveling the country, preaching his gospel livingrd work deserves a wage. as head of the labor department, he is advocated raging -- raising the minimum wage to $10.10. pushed for paid parental leave, and worked to reduce the number of workers virtualized as contractors. he has been active on worker contracts. the department issued new regulations on wages, hiring, and chemical exposure. the sun of immigrants from the dominican republic who settled in buffalo, perez has a long history in washington as a defender of civil rights. senator tedviser to kennedy, and spent many years in the justice department's office of civil rights. beforethe division president obama appointed him the labor department last year. according to some press reports, obama is considering sending perez back to justice to replace holder, who announced last month he plans to step down. hisz is not without detractors, however. before becoming labor secretary, he endured a grueling confirmation process in which mitch mcconnell, the leader of the senate republican minority, called him a committed ideologue. not, we look forward to hearing his thoughts on the economy, the job market, the vacancy of justice, and perhaps the nuts. doma, please give a warm national press club welcome to tom perez. >> good afternoon. thank you for that generous welcome. i might talk about the buffalo bills, but we will say that for another time. thanks to everyone at the press club, including my good friend allison fitzgerald, who lives in the neighborhood. we are overrepresented in tacoma park, but that is ok. thank you for having me. over the summer, something remarkable happened around new england. thousands of employers of the regional supermarket chain market basket walked off the job to protest the firing of their ceo. workers up and down the chain of command put their jobs on the line to help rally, picketed throughout the summer. eight managers who spearheaded the first rally, some of them had been with the company for more than 40 years, were fired. loyal customers held their own rallies. merchandise sales started to dwindle, sales lag, vendors began to cut their ties with the company. the governors of two states stepped in to try and broker a deal. in the end, deal was reached, and he took back control of the company. just in time for labor day, the market basket employees went to work. they have 71 full-service supermarkets across new england. they employ roughly 25,000 people. these employees had one demand, they were calling for the return of their ceo. return, she stood on the back of a pickup truck and made a very memorable speech, which i think is very relevant to what we are discussing today. this is what he said. you have demonstrated that everyone here has a purpose. you have demonstrated that everyone has meaning, and no one person is better or more important than another. whether it is a full timer or a part timer, whether it is a stacker, a cashier, a grocery clerk, truck driver, warehouse director, store manager, supervisor, customer, vendor, or a ceo. we are all equal i working together, and only together do we succeed. they launched their protest because they wanted to work for a guy like him. someone who didn't treat him like they were another cost of doing business, but rather as a valuable asset. worthy of dignity. he understands the doing right by your employees is a great way to generate loyalty and foructivity, adding value customers and increasing your profit margins. he knows that in an economy that works for everyone, prosperity is shared. as they were getting up and running, i had the privilege along with some of my friends in labor to travel with the president on labor day weekend to milwaukee. the president gave a speech in which he said while most every measure, the american economy and american workers are better off than when i took office. the data backs them up. september was the 55th straight month the private sector job growth, to the tune of 10.3 million new jobs. that is the longest uninterrupted streak of rabbit sector job creation on record. unemployment is now at its lowest level since july 2008. all told, the united states has put more people back to work than europe, japan, and every advanced economy combined. manufacturing continues to make a historic back. things in america. in source using his in -- in sourcing is in, outsourcing is out. u.s. exports are up. since the first time since 2006, the poverty rate is down. child poverty had its largest one-year decline last year since 1966. the number of young people graduating high school is up, while crime and incarceration rates are down. systemng the health care bd>abd -- a . thanks to the affordable care act, we reduced the number of uninsured adults. it is undeniably true that we in these sixgress years, since the president inherited the worst economic crisis of our lifetime. 2 million jobs were lost. almost every indicator shows that we are better off now than we were on january 20, 2009. that is not enough. the number what the president said. at theember whe president said. almost isn't good enough. it's not good enough for me, it's not good enough for america. it's not good enough for the man i met in new jersey who had a six-figure job in the advertising industry, lost his job, and now is struggling to make ends meet. he said when i had cancer, that was easier than fighting long-term unemployment. thest isn't good enough for 71-year-old woman i met in houston, who has been a janitor for 30 years. even though she helped organize her coworkers, she still struggles to keep her head above water. just isn't enough. increasing the minimum wage would go a long way toward giving her some peace of mind. thest isn't good enough for new mom from texas who wrote to us after we were doing our paid leave campaign. she had to go without a paycheck for six months in order to take time off to be with her daughter, who was born nine weeks premature. all because we are the only nation in the industrialized planet that doesn't have a paid leave law. almost isn't good enough for the millions of people who are working hard and falling further behind. there is no dignity in working 40 to 50 hours a week and getting your food at the food pantry. for them, and for all of these other families who continue to struggle, the data points don't mean a whole lot. if the breadwinner in your house is out of work, the unemployment rate might as well be 100%. even if that breadwinner has been lucky enough to keep her job, chances are, she hasn't seen a meaningful raising years. contributinghe is to rising productivity, and it growing economy with her hard work. the pie is getting bigger, american workers helped take it, but they are not getting a bigger slice. sweat equity is not translating into financial equity. 2014 for thee in best year of private sector job growth since 1998. but the difference between now and then is that in the late 90's, the rising tide lifted more boats. it lifted the yachts and the rafts. it lifted the cruise liners and the dinghies. the principal of this business seems to me is to ensure that prosperity is broadly shared. that we built an economy that truly works, and meaningfully works for everyone. some say these challenges are intractable, that the problem is structural, whether it is low wages or long-term unemployment. globalization, technological progress, create inherent and intractable inequities and opportunity gaps that can be held off. i don't buy it. structural unemployment, for me , that's excuse making. i'm not giving up. this president is in giving up, we recognize that low wages and lousy benefits are a choice. they are not a necessity. and that is why i'm confident that we can construct a fair way to share prosperity in which everybody has a chance to live their highest and best dreams. that is what i want to talk to about. this stairway has a number of important steps. starting with tearing up the talking points. an understanding history. shared prosperity is not a fringe concept, cooked up by socialist. historically, both parties have embraced it in both their words and indeed, their actions. a principle that as american as apple pie, and a linchpin of a thriving middle class. here's what teddy roosevelt said. our aim is to promote prosperity, and to see that prosperity is passed around, and there is a proper division of prosperity. it,t take my word for listen to one of wall street's most powerful executives. lloyd blankfein, ceo of goldman sachs, who said -- he talked about the destabilizing impact of income inequality. over theof the gdp last generation has gone to too few of the people. standard & poor's recently issued a report explaining that income inequality is stifling gdp growth come at a time when we are still priming -- climbing out of the great recession. a rising tide lifts all boats, but a lifeboat carrying a few surrounded by many treading water risks capsizing. ago, this isys what janet yellen said. the extent of and continuing increase in inequality in the united states greatly concerns may. it is no secret that in the past few decades of widening inequality can be summed up as significant income and wealth gains for those at the very top, and stagnant living standards for the majority. so people across ideological spectrum recognize that america works best when they feel the whole team at. and when the entire team shares in the sacrifices and the spoils. and nevers are not will be golden ages in america. but in today's political climate, and the polarization, i feel like there are some who have regrettably lost sight of that. shared prosperity is a non- partisan principle. it is a key to long-term success. another step in the shareware -- stairway to shared prosperity is a familiar one. we have basic, commonsense tools our disposal that have worked in the past and can work again. we need to raise the men among wage. despite what you of heard on capitol hill, this isn't a radical concept. the congress, led by newt gingrich, passed it. every president except for two cents fdr has signed into law. but we have been stuck at $7.25 for years. the purchasing power of the minimum wage is 20% less than it was 30 years ago. the u.s. has the lowest minimum wage as a percentage of median wage, the third lowest among oecd countries. the third lowest. pond andok across the see countries governed by conservative leadership, such as the u.k., where they recently announced an increase in the minimum wage to $11.05 an hour. why did they do this? reasond it for that same that that flaming liberal, henry ford, did it. he doubled the wages for people on assembly lines because you said countrywide high wages spell countrywide prosperity. this is not a fringe idea. a strong majority of folks, and a majority of small businesses report increases -- support minimum wage,he because they understand that generates economic growth. and what is this is need more than anything -- businesses need more than anything is customers. they understand that 70% of gdp growth is consumption. let's stimulate consumption in order to strengthen the economy and continue to pick up the pace of recovery. we also need to have our in for structure investment. when you to rebuild roads and bridges, transit systems. these are opportunities to create middle-class jobs right away. and facilitate commerce for decades and decades account. yes, it involves federal spending. but it involves better role -- federal spending when dwight eisenhower crated the interstate highway system is one of his most enduring legacies. former local elected official and worked on transportation issues, i can tell you we can't build on it for century infrastructure when we are living year to year, month to month, on transportation budgets. that is why long-term planning is so critically important. we also need to fix our broken immigration system. it is not simply a moral or humanitarian or national security imperative. it is an economic imperative. the cbo estimates that in the grecian reform will increase -- immigration reform will increase real gdp by 5.4% over the next decade. that translates into an ofitional 1.4 trillion economic activity. adding jobs, putting upward pressure on wages, helping to stabilize the social security trust fund. these three ideas, when you think about them, they have worked in the past. they enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the past. we need to do them again now. they are critical to our nation's continued growth. we shouldn't stop there, and congress shouldn't stop there. the third step to shared prosperity is we need to continue to think big, and bold. comprehensive immigration reform is big and bold. there are other ideas that we should be using as well. let me give you one example. this example, i have seen across the country. it is a sleeper issue that will sleep no more. that is the issue of paid leave. we stand alone as the only industrialized nation on the planet where paid leave is not the law of the land. our dismal record on paid leave, for me, was on prominent display when i recently traveled to australia for the meeting of the g 20 labor ministers. when you look at other countries, canada, australia, it u.k., germany, japan, the nordic's, others. they are all leaning in on leave. that we are way behind. they all recognize that paid leave is good economic policy, and good family policy. they know it is essential to have thriving businesses and flexible workplaces. these aren't mutually exclusive. these are inextricably intertwined and mutually reinforced. why can't we figure it out here in the u.s.? why are we making people choose between the job that they need and the family that they love? why are we giving people more tools to be attentive parents and productive employees? how can we say that we continue to be for family values, when so many people have to jeopardize their economic security to take a few weeks off to have a kid? matter oft simply a doing the right thing, it is also an important strategy for reducing labor force per dissipation. every first friday of the month, the most frequent the asked question i get is what can you do to increase labor force participation? talk about paid leave, and compare the united states of canada. the labor force per tip is -- participation rate for women aged way five to 54 in the year 2000 in the u.s. and canada was virtually identical. today, canada is ahead of us by a percentage point -- eight percentage points because they have affordable access to affordable childcare and paid leave. if we had kept pace with canada over these years, we would have 5.5 million more women in the workforce. the innovation economy would be enriched by this reservoir of human capital. sectors that have serious gender gaps, like the silicon valley, wall street, and elsewhere, would have additional talent to tap. i've said before, america works best when we field a full team a. there is a lot of female talent on the bench. that is not right. those 5.5 million more women off the bench and into the game, we increase gdp by an estimated 3.5%. which translates into more than 500 billion dollars -- $500 billion of additional economic activity. we are essentially by in action leaving significant amounts of money on the table because we are not leading on leave. the president convened a summer on working -- a summit on working families. at a time when women are nearly half the workforce, the primary breadwinners in more families than ever before, anything that makes wife's -- lives harder for women makes wife's harder for families and children. when women succeed, america succeeds. there is no such thing as a woman's issue. this is a family issue, an american issue. the bottom line is, for the good of our family, and the strength of our economy, we need to lead on leave. and we can't simply leave talent on the bench. we need to cultivate talents. anotherings me to critical step in the stairway to shared prosperity. that is the issue of skill. just as we need to invest in our physical infrastructure, and our transportation and for structure, we need to invest in our human capital and the structure. -- infrastructure. we built the railroads and the internet, and just we have done that, we need to have a skills ecosystem that meets the needs of our economy and opens up front years for new growth. there are two very important pieces of good news in this area. first of all, there are millions of good middle-class jobs available for the taking right now. opportunities are growing. many of them require less than a college degree, although they tend to require more than a high school degree. hasywhere i go, my life gone that way. i have the same conversation with employers, and it is a good conversation. this is what they tell me. iam bullish about america, want to grow my business, it might be manufacturing, health care, i.t., whatever it is. i want to grow my business. my biggest challenges i need to make sure that we have a pipeline of skilled talent to make it happen. there are opportunities across sectors. about one quarter of the magazinesin fortune list of the 100 fastest-growing companies are in the energy sector. that means a treasure trove of energy-related jobs, good middle-class jobs. we are working with the industry to give workers the training they need to fill those jobs. the same is true in other industries. i meet with utility ceos across this country. the utilities are in a process of dramatically expanding and modernizing the grid. what that means is, they will need more workers. these jobs start at $50,000 and above. i was with tom wheeler, the fcc chair, last week. we can't expand broadband without middle-class workers as well. that is an exciting development that creates opportunities. the list goes on and on. we need upwards of 100,000 more computer support specialists in the coming years. estimates of over 65,000 dental hygienist, 30,000 more surgical techs. these are jobs that can support a family, saying between $40,000 and $70,000 a year. get thecases you necessary credentials at a community college, and then you build your way up the skills superhighway. that is the second piece of good news that i want to share with you. a are in the middle of remarkably exciting transformation in the way in which we prepared job seekers of all ages for the middle-class jobs of today and tomorrow. we have gotten rid of what i have been calling the old train and prey model, where we train widget makers, and we pray that someone is hiring them. that is yesterday's paradigm. today's paradigm as we are focused on demand driven or job driven training. working more closely with industry, with their bureau of labor statistics, and others, than ever before to understand with precision the needs of employers in granular detail. and then making sure that we design programs to meet those precise needs so that people can punch their ticket to the middle class, and employers can grow their businesses. when people ask him hey, tom, what do do for a living, this is what i told him. the department of labor is match.com. what we do is help make a connection, just the right fit. to work americans, who want to punch their ticket to the middle class, and jobs and employers who need and want to grow their business. the secret sauce of this match.com is very frequently community colleges, who provide that critical training that enable people to move up that ladder. let me give you an example of this transformation at work. a couple of weeks ago, i met a , whoamed steve capshaw owns an advanced manufacturing business in western mass. they supply critical component parts to the aerospace industry and in the medical device area. his entry-level workers started 20 -- we dollars an hour to $25 an hour with out of his -- generous benefits. he described his experience during the great recession. in the middle of the recovery, 2010, 2011, as america was struggling to add jobs, steve's company was actually turning away large amounts of business for one civil reason -- -- simple reason, he had a shortage of skilled workers. he raised wages, he increased benefits, he did all of that. but he still couldn't recruit the right people. as he listened to stories of stagnant wages and persistent unemployment, as steve said to me, he felt like he was living on another planet. those were his words. match.com sprang into action. middle skilled many factoring initiative was born in western massachusetts. this is a joint venture of local manufacturing businesses community colleges, the workforce investment system, which includes federal, state, and local government working together. grantmaking, we were catalyzing partners like this in western massachusetts and in various growth sectors across the country. result, the father of twins who was stuck in a low-wage job cycle during the great recession , successfully completed a training program and is now a very highly valued and well compensated employee of steve's company. this was a win for steve, a win for dana and his family, and a win for america. in this example, it's not a one-off. we see this, and we are helping to build these partnerships in communities across the country. we are not simply tinkering with the workforce system. we are transforming it. just as president eisenhower built the interstate highway system, we are building a modernized refurbished skills superhighway that enables workers to get good jobs in businesses to find good workers. we do this in partnerships with businesses, labor unions, colleges, nonprofits, philanthropy, republicans and democrats in congress, and our partners in state and local government. the new workforce innovation and opportunity act, which was passed this summer in a strong bipartisan fashion, will enable us to continue this transformation. the superhighway has plenty of on ramps and off ramps. the destination is a middle-class job, but there are many different groups to get there. unity colleges are one will traveled half, but we are putting up the orange cones and doing the road work to make that ride much smoother. the obama administration has made a bold investment of over $2 billion over the last four years to help committed to colleges develop innovative training programs and curricula that held people launch middle-class careers. technical training and a friendship is another important stretch of the highway, and we have been helped in this area by partnerships with labor unions across the country who figured this out for years. they get it. as a nation, we haven't kept up with the necessary renovations in the printer ship area. we have massively underinvested in apprenticeship. that's why i'm heading to germany and the u.k. to learn more about apprenticeship practices overseas. that's why i spend time with the finishing trades institute in philadelphia, learning from folks who get it, have done it, and can do it for so many people. they train people for the jobs of today and tomorrow, that came -- that pay middle-class wages. my folks taught me that education is the great equalizer. that continues to be the case today. whether it is a four-year degree, an associate's degree, and online learning come on the job training, that i dw certificate -- i met a guy who said i got the golden ticket. you ever seen will want to -- willy wonka? i said not allow. he said i got the golden ticket. i can go anywhere in america and earn a minimum wage -- a middle-class wage because i have the golden ticket. the is a critical step in stairway to shared prosperity for millions of job makers across america. steps, iabout a lot of have two more want to discuss before i get to questions. i want to do that very briefly. the recent events at market basket i think it really illustrated the importance of worker voice. he created an environment where every worker felt empowered, validated, and respected. to him, worker voice wasn't a threat to the company. it was an indispensable asset. that has a was been the case in the history of our country. worker voice can take so many forms. one of the most important of which is being part of a union. the obama administration continues to be resolute that when it comes to protecting elected bargaining rights in this country, we need to into new to protect these rights. they have come under attack in recent years. when i look at history, is a guy who grew up in buffalo, new york, there is an absolute direct relationship between the health of the middle class and the health and vitality of the labor union. let's look at the data from the bureau of labor statistics. they report that last year, median weekly income for union members was $200 higher than for nonunion members. that is pocket change -- that aint pocket change. it doesn't even take into account severe benefits for union members. i would rather work at a ford plant and make more money, then a nissan plant in mississippi and make less money and less protection. [applause] i grew up in buffalo, new york. i saw firsthand that a job in a union shop was a surefire where to punch your ticket to the middle class. when i saw in buffalo and continue to see here is that unions don't succeed at the expense of business. they succeed in partnership with business. i was at the ford plant in louisville, kentucky. back in the height of the recession, that plant had a nexus central crisis. -- and x essential crisis. they had shared sacrifice, a good vision, and now they have shared prosperity. over 4400 workers, and that doesn't include the supply chain. i see that. i see partnership in action. in so many places, whether it is the uaw, whether it is the sei , with the health and hospital system, building a toy for century workforce, whether it is the folks in the teamsters at ups, working together to make sure that ups competes in the global economy of 2014. we see partnership in action everywhere across this country. inneed to create space america for new forms of to medication between workers and their employers. one of the reasons i'm going to germany is to look at and study the work council model firsthand. i will spend the entire afternoon at volkswagen one day. that works council model is a wonderful model that we should consider importing into this united states. the works council is all about codetermination. you look at what the volkswagen leadership set about the works council model. the fact theyt consider the corporate culture of works councils a competitive advantage. that is volkswagen speaking. i think they have a point. there are so many other models of success to give voice to workers. there are so many nonprofits emerging. one of the most recent recipients of one of the macarthur genius awards runs the national domestic workers alliance. she has created remarkable opportunities to advocate on behalf of workers in low-wage industries who are doing god's work in somebody different ways. giving voice to the marginalized workers. there are so many other opportunities to give this voice in so many different contexts. i was just recently at a meeting in vermont of the be court movement, and they are remarkably forward leaning and what they are trying to do in the be courp movements. they stand for the proposition that you can do good and do well. natalie do you do good and do well, you have to do good in order to do well. that is why i think worker voice is so important. worker voice is a function of the last observation i would like to make. which is sibley, the importance of leadership. indispensablean characteristic of how we will succeed in this country. in bringing shared prosperity to everyone. it has to be leadership from washington. president obama has demonstrated that if congress is not going to act, he will use executive authority to provide that leadership. the phone has been raining off the hook to deal well on all of these initiatives could the pen is off the ink. we have more initiatives to provide opportunities for people. whether it is people working maytime, billions of whom be eligible for raises when we enacted the regulation on overtime. we will continue to work on those areas, the president will continue to exert leadership there. we have seen leadership at a state and local level as well, because we see so many states who are not waiting for congress to act in the minimum wage paid leave and other issues of that nature because they recognize that so many people need a raise, and they are not waiting for congress. we see that leadership. i see continued leadership from the labor movement and other nonprofit leaders who are helping, for instance, in the fast food movement. those are great example of so many people working together. people who come in the labor movement, they define success not simply by the size of the membership, but the number of people they help area that is what shared prosperity is about. it is about helping your neighbor. i see in my work every day, every week, the business community. employers tell you that income inequality and wage stagnation are defining economic challenges of our time. they are telling me that investments in their workers is an investment in the strength of their company. they are rejecting the false choices that are holding us back from shared prosperity. we simply stick notion that paying high wages undermines competitiveness, or come collective bargaining heard's economic growth, or that you can take care of your shareholders or your employees, but not both. they understand the treaty workers with dignity and respect isn't just a nice thing to do, it is good for your bottom line. folks see themselves not only is accountable to their shareholders, but a broader universe of stakeholders. have theo have esop's same thing. $1 trillion in that area. they understand the high road is the smart road, and they are taking that road. the gap has made a commission and -- a commitment to paying have the minimum wage, and an emphasis on pay equity and promotion of women. if you look to the new york times, you would see that prospective employees are drawn to places like the gap, and they had a 24% increase in their applications since they announced their policies. we see so many examples, whether movement, orrp individual corporations like gap and so many others. you see it in every single business model around, whether it is cosco, the gap, whether it is so many others across the country. they understand that we have got to look long term. i had one ceo was said to me he was talking about a renegade shareholder, who wasn't interested in thinking long-term. this quote realistic in my head. this renegade shareholder was saying i would rather be rich than right. think about that. i would rather be rich than right. this ceo was saying i want to act long-term. we will continue to look long term as a nation. that is what we have to do. i want to leave you with a story about where we started. which is, our friends from market basket. they have done or markable work. -- remarkable work. they have captured the imagination of the nation. they have done really a service. they have demonstrated that you can do good and do well. what we really need are more companies like market basket. more partnerships like the uaw and the ford motor company. these guys risk everything because they believed that a market basket without the ceo was not worth being a part of. say the company was like second family. mark worked 34 years there, now his sun is an assistant manager. he talked about how they would start every day by emphasizing what he called our most precious customers. christie will tell you that he always said we are in the people business first in the grocery business second. timewill talk about the when the founder of the company came into the store the first date opened, and mark said to him, thank you for trusting me to run one of your stores. and he grabbed him and said mark, remember, it is our store. not my store. we can talk to all these folks because they are in the middle-of-the-road here, along with others. they are all here. this is what we are about. they have shown that shared prosperity is indeed a reality of this country. we can do this. it is our store. just like it is our economy. it belongs to all of us. it is not functioning as it works for everyone. i want to leave you not simply with the words of their boss, but with the words of another boss. his name is bruce springsteen. [laughter] who said, you know what, nobody wins unless everybody wins. i think we can get there is a nation. thank you so much. [applause] >> if you could remain here, and join me. we will try to do some rapidfire questioning. the unemployment rate has been falling in recent months for a how reflective is it of the real economic situation? >> for people like catherine hackett, who i met -- she introduced the president and one of the long-term unemployed events. she had been unemployed for three years, and she has a job now. it is a reality for her now. she has punched her ticket to the million -- the middle class. too many other people as i described are still struggling. too many long-term unemployed for instance. are getting better. and too many people who are working hard and haven't had a raise in years. that is really the challenge for us. we are moving in the right direction, but we have to pick up the pace of growth and make sure that the prosperity that comes with growth is shared by everyone. >> how happy are you with the quality of the jobs created during this recovery? >> i have heard some who have said this recovery has been a low-wage recovery. i see theually look, commissioner here. if you look at the last year, the area that have the most growth in jobs was this is an professional services. over 700,000, if memory serves me. these are accountants. a majority of these jobs are accountants, architects, jobs that pay quite well. we have seen immense growth there. low-wage jobs tend to be the first jobs to be lost. and they have come back as well. what we need to do is work on these jobs that are the middle class, middle skill jobs. that is why our skills agenda , i thinkoice agenda they can lead to prosperity across the board. >> you have said you haven't given up the push to revise emergency and employment benefits. at this late stage in the recovery, how many weeks of benefits do you think are the right amount for unemployment -- for unemployed jobseekers? >> i haven't given up the fight, and i applaud the efforts of jack reed, senator heller from nevada, and senator collins from maine. it h been a bipartisan effort in the senate. that is because once again, this issue is a bipartisan issue. historically. never in the history of our nation has congress, with long-term employment rates as high as they were in december of last year, failed to extend emergency unemployment conversation -- compensation. never until last december. i sure wish that leader boehner would do what i do, which is lead with long-term unemployed as i tried -- meet with long-term unemployed as i try to do every several months. when you meet them, you understand they need under a's -- they need to extend these benefits. it is not a lifestyle. >> the obama administration has not been able to push through an increase in the minimum wage so far. is there any reason to think that will change after the midterms, or are we in for two more years of grinding and lock -- gridlock? >> i don't have a crystal ball, but i can tell you the american people want results. i worked in local and state government. wet i liked about that was could deliver results and got things done. that is what the president wants to do. andants to work with anyone everyone of immigration reform, transportation infrastructure, minimum wage, any of these issues. i think you continue to ignore the will and needs of the american voter at your peril. we will continue to work with anyone and everyone across an ideological spectrum who is interested and willing to come up with common sense middle ground. is not a dirty word for me, or this president. but regrettably for some, it is a talking point in a campaign. >> silicon valley business leaders are demanding immigration reform because they say there aren't enough workers to fill the demand for high-tech engineers. tot steps are you taking make certain that america remains a leader in the tech field? >> i have spent a lot of time with folks in the silicon valley. the silicon valley leadership group just released about one week ago, a book they have with essays from 20 different leaders across the ideological spectrum. i had the privilege of adding one of those pieces. love about immigration reform, and this is not new. is that the support is bipartisan. i hear from labor unions, we need immigration reform it. by here from silicon valley we need immigration reform it. i hear from facebook. everybody, that we need immigration reform. that is what it was like when it worked for senator kennedy. we did 80 amendments in a committee want to work for him. i need one hand to count the number of partyline votes, because this has never been a partisan issue. the stories that i hear from both the silicon valley, from people whose families have been broken up very they tell your heart out. we can do better. that is why we will continue to advocate, and the president isn't waiting. continue tohe will take aggressive executive action. but there is no substitute for it bill. we can't help everyone by executive action. ideas -- i know we are trying to go through rapidfire do you haveideas the fix detroit, the rust belt, and other cities that have not been able to retool or rebuild in the present day? >> we asked to have a detroit task force. some of the most vexing challenges confronting america are requiring unprecedented levels of interagency collaboration. that is why we have been working together with the cap in detroit like never before. one of the biggest challenges that they have there is they don't have a regional transit authority. think about it. bring trying to being -- more jobs into detroit, and we been successful so far. we need to pick up the pace. so many of the jobs are out of the suburbs, and if you can't get there, how can you work there? we are working together on transportation issues and skills and for structure. so may people are not trained for the jobs of today and tomorrow. we are working to build a seamless structure of education from cradle to grave that will enable people to be prepared for those jobs. those are examples of things that we continue to do. i think the stovepipe implosion will help not only detroit but many other cities. >> if governor scott walker wins another term on november 4, it means he will successfully taken on the public employee unions. what that encourage other governors, especially republican ones, to do the same in their states? what will that mean for public employee unions? >> i will not going to speculate on who will win elections on november 4. every state has the ability to enact laws in the labor context. i think the efforts that took place in wisconsin and elsewhere were not in the best interest of workers. ,e watched a states like ohio you saw a remarkable unsuccessful push back against efforts to limit voice. i think voice is an indispensable part of shared prosperity. whether it is labor unions, collective bargaining, supporting works councils, supporting organizations like the domestic workers alliance, whether it is supporting b corps, the more we can do to support voice in any way shape or form, the more we can do to build shared prosperity. >> a little personal. what was your first job, and how did it shape your life? >> growing up in buffalo, new york, my first job -- i had three people roots. -- paper routes. we used to have a morning paper, the courier express. i had that. a drivingall falls in range. with a helmet. some people thought i didn't have a helmet on. i worked on the back of a trash truck. i worked at sears for a number of years. all of those jobs taught me the dignity of work and the value of whatever job you are at. you give your best, you work your hardest. >> now, to your next job, maybe. attorney general holder been a lightning rod throughout his tenure at the justice department. why is that, and what can his successor due to prevent becoming a lightning rod? >> eric holder stood up for voting rights. eric holder stood up for common sense criminal justice reform. eric holder ended up working on issues like reducing the crack powder disparity in a bipartisan way in congress. these are many of the defining issues of our day. when you are going to work on some of these defining issues of our day, you will have folks who oppose you. i do not believe come as we prepare to celebrate the 50th anniversary of what he sunday, i don't believe the enduring voting issue 50 years later is in person voter fraud. i don't believe that because i did these cases when i was over there. that is a phantom problem. thingsic holder says like that, people disagree with him. , and the his candor movement they have done in that area. >> what should be the justice department's top priorities? [laughter] >> i have not studied at issue since i was at the department of labor. i can tell you the department of labor's priorities should be putting people back to work, continuing the pace of growth, and making sure that we have shared prosperity. [laughter] >> we do have two more in the area of a possible next job. i'm talking about my day job here. [laughter] >> attorney general holder says he won't send journalists to jail for doing their job, suggesting that in new york times reporter is unlikely to spend time behind bars. specifically he said in an interview with msnbc, he's that i stand by what i said. no reporter is going to jail as long as i'm attorney general. would you maintain a position, should you happen to become attorney general? or if not, do support that position? >> my singler focus is on the job of being at the department of labor. i know the attorney general very much values the role of the press as the fourth branch of government. he served under general reno. in hern participated weekly conferences, whether it was good news, bad news, or indifferent. there with her in those press briefings. he understands the critical in soance of the press many aspects of our lives. >> we return to the labor department for a few questions. our employers -- our employers doing their part to train workers, or his on-the-job train disappeared? >> one of the most exciting trance for missions in our workforce system that we are seeing is the remark or -- remarkable level of employee engagement. we cannot succeed, in the advanced many fracturing -- manufacturing i talked about. ofs designed with the input the industry. when you hire someone, you know what you are getting. that level of employer engagement is one of the linchpins of our transformation. the reason is because too many employers were telling me that they were hiring folks. they had a credential, but they didn't know what was behind it. now that they are actively engaged in the development of that credential, they have skin in the game it. they understand it. as a result, they can do some at more. strength and influence continues to decline in this country. so have a number of factors related to worker security and satisfaction. how do we bring about -- how we bring back protections and fair -- fair paynefits and benefits to workers in this area of corporate rights and diminishing worker esteem? >> we start out by studying the experience of our neighbors to the north. the new york times had a story about how the middle class of the united states is not faring as well as the middle class elsewhere. they use canada as one example. issue, as i studied this why is the middle class faring better in canada? their union density is over twice with union density is america. it's about 26%. versus 11% and change here in the united states. look at places like germany, where you have very low youth unemployment. very robust economy. you have robust union density. again, it gets back to this issue a voice. make sure that we have multiple mechanisms to give workers a level playing field. when we do that, as volkswagen in summary others have demonstrated, it works to the benefit of workers, employers, and communities alike. >> how can we close the wage gap without collective bargaining? >> i think collective bargaining is a very important part of the mix here. the health of the middle class and the strength of the union movement, when you study history, go hand-in-hand. , as tomtest generation brokaw you should talk about, they not only defended our defendedd really democracy, but when they came back to the united states, what they ended up doing was -- they were our laborers, and for people -- forepeople. they were the folks that helped accelerate the entry of the united states into the middle class. that greatest generation wasn't simply great on the battlefield. right in the workplace. one of their major compliments was that they help to grow the middle class through the importance of collective bargaining, through standing up for workers. we see so many examples, whether if you bought- $1000 worth of costco stock 15 years ago, you would have 15,000 dollars now. they've outperformed the s&p 500 index significantly. other companies, similar examples across every business model. airlines. when i go to bwi airport, southwest airlines pays their baggage handlers a fair wage. and many 95 to newark, of them as a result of a decision by some of the legacy carriers, they are making the minimum wage. i was up there talking to them a few months back. that doesn't have to be that way. low wages are a choice, not a necessity. there are so many samples of that. >> thank you. we are all set of time. but before asking the last question, we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first of all, -- one minute, we have an issue here. we will get to the mug later. first of all, i would like to remind you about two upcoming speakers luncheons on october 21, tomorrow. scott blackmun, president and ceo of the u.s. olympic committee. on november 7, robert mcdonald, secretary of veterans affairs. i would like to present you with our traditional mug come and we have done it so that it is lightweight and easily portable, just in case you need to move offices. [laughter] >> and less than $20. >> if i can ask you the last question, in the labor department, can they do anything about the employment situation of journalists? [laughter] >> there are a few things that keep me up at night more than the employment situation of journalists. what we do is, we hire more journalists so that they can tell our stories. journalists like so many others have similar challenges. i hope you continue to do the great work you are doing to shine a light. book, i said your you are the fourth present government -- branch of government. think you free time at. thank you for coming today. we are adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> our campaign 2014 coverage with a week full of debates. tonight at 8:00, the georgia between nathane deal and jason carter and at 8:00, the montana u.s. senate debate with representative steve daines and amanda
industry, with their bureau of labor statistics, and others, than ever before to understand with precision the needs of employers in granular detail. and then making sure that we design programs to meet those precise needs so that people can punch their ticket to the middle class, and employers can grow their businesses. when people ask him hey, tom, what do do for a living, this is what i told him. the department of labor is match.com. what we do is help make a connection, just the right fit. between ready to work americans, who want to punch their ticket to the middle class, and jobs and employers who need and want to grow their business. the secret sauce of this match.com is very frequently community colleges, who provide that critical training that enable people to move up that ladder. let me give you an example of this transformation at work. a couple of weeks ago, i met a guy named steve capshaw, who owns an advanced manufacturing business in western mass. they supply critical component parts to the aerospace industry and in the medical device area. his entry-level workers started $20 an hour to $25 an hour with generous benefits. he described his experience during the great recession. in the middle of the recovery, 2010, 2011, as america was struggling to add jobs, steve's company was actually turning away large amounts of business for one simple reason -- he had a shortage of skilled workers. he raised wages, he increased benefits, he did all of that. but he still couldn't recruit the right people. as he listened to stories of stagnant wages and persistent unemployment, as steve said to me, he felt like he was living on another planet. those were his words. dol is match.com sprang into action. the middle skilled many factoring initiative was born in western massachusetts. this is a joint venture of local manufacturing businesses community colleges, the workforce investment system, which includes federal, state, and local government working together. in our grantmaking, we were catalyzing partners like this in western massachusetts and in various growth sectors across the country. as a result, the father of twins who was stuck in a low-wage job cycle during the great recession, successfully completed a training program and is now a very highly valued and well compensated employee of steve's company. this was a win for steve, a win for dana and his family, and a win for america. in this example, it's not a one-off. we see this, and we are helping to build these partnerships in communities across the country. we are not simply tinkering with the workforce system. we are transforming it. just as president eisenhower built the interstate highway system, we are building a modernized refurbished skills superhighway that enables workers to get good jobs in businesses to find good workers. we do this in partnerships with businesses, labor unions, colleges, nonprofits, philanthropy, republicans and democrats in congress, and our partners in state and local government. the new workforce innovation and opportunity act, which was passed this summer in a strong bipartisan fashion, will enable us to continue this transformation. the superhighway has plenty of on ramps and off ramps. the destination is a middle-class job, but there are many different groups to get there. unity colleges are one will traveled half, but we are putting up the orange cones and doing the road work to make that ride much smoother. the obama administration has made a bold investment of over $2 billion over the last four years to help committed to colleges develop innovative training progrs and curricula that held people launch middle-class careers. technical training and a friendship is another important stretch of the highway, and we have been helped in this area by partnerships with labor unions across the country who figured this out for years. they get it. unfortunately, as a nation, we haven't kept up with the necessary renovations in the printer ship area. we have massively underinvested in apprenticeship. that's why i'm heading to germany and the u.k. to learn more about apprenticeship practices overseas. that's why i spend time with the finishing trades institute in philadelphia, learning from folks who get it, have done it, and can do it for so many people. they train people for the jobs of today and tomorrow, that came -- that pay middle-class wages. my folks taught me that education is the great equalizer. that continues to be the case today. whether it is a four-year degree, an associate's degree, and online learning come on the job training, i met a guy who said i got the golden ticket. you ever seen willy wonka? i said not in a while. he said i got the golden ticket. i can go anywhere in america and earn a middle-class wage because i have the golden ticket. this is a critical step in the stairway to shared prosperity for millions of job makers across america. i talked about a lot of steps, i have two more want to discuss before i get to questions. i want to do that very briefly. the recent events at market basket i think it really illustrated the importance of worker voice. he created an environment where every worker felt empowered, validated, and respected. to him, worker voice wasn't a threat to the company. it was an indispensable asset. that has a was been the case in the history of our country. worker voice can take so many forms. one of the most important of which is being part of a union. the obama administration continues to be resolute that when it comes to protecting elected bargaining rights in this country, we need to into new to protect these rights. they have come under attack in recent years. when i look at history, is a guy who grew up in buffalo, new york, there is an absolute direct relationship between the health of the middle class and the health and vitality of the labor union. let's look at the data from the bureau of labor statistics. they report that last year, median weekly income for union members was $200 higher than for nonunion members. that aint pocket change. it doesn't even take into account severe benefits for union members. i would rather work at a ford plant and make more money, then a nissan plant in mississippi and make less money and less protection. [applause] i grew up in buffalo, new york. i saw firsthand that a job in a union shop was a surefire where to punch your ticket to the middle class. when i saw in buffalo and continue to see here is that unions don't succeed at the expense of business. they succeed in partnership with business. i was at the ford plant in louisville, kentucky. back in the height of the recession, that plant had an existential crisis. they had shared sacrifice, a good vision, and now they have shared prosperity. today, over 4400 workers, and that doesn't include the supply chain. i see that. i see partnership in action. in so many places, whether it is the uaw, whether it is the sei you in new york, with the health and hospital system, building a toy for century workforce, whether it is the folks in the teamsters at ups, working together to make sure that ups competes in the global economy of 2014. we see partnership in action everywhere across this country. we need to create space in america for new forms of to medication between workers and their employers. one of the reasons i'm going to germany is to look at and study the work council model firsthand. i will spend the entire afternoon at volkswagen one day. that works council model is a wonderful model that we should consider importing into this united states. the works council is all about codetermination. you look at what the volkswagen leadership set about the works council model. they talk about the fact they consider the corporate culture of works councils a competitive advantage. that is volkswagen speaking. i think they have a point. there are so many other models of success to give voice to workers. there are so many nonprofits emerging. one of the most recent recipients of one of the macarthur genius awards runs the national domestic workers alliance. she has created remarkable opportunities to advocate on behalf of workers in low-wage industries who are doing god's work in somebody different ways. giving voice to the marginalized workers. there are so many other opportunities to give this voice in so many different contexts. i was just recently at a meeting in vermont of the be court movement, and they are remarkably forward leaning and what they are trying to do in the be courp movements. they stand for the proposition that you can do good and do well. not only do you do good and do well, you have to do good in order to do well. that is why i think worker voice is so important. worker voice is a function of the last observation i would like to make. which is sibley, the importance of leadership. leadership is an indispensable characteristic of how we will succeed in this country. in bringing shared prosperity to everyone. it has to be leadership from washington. president obama has demonstrated that if congress is not going to act, he will use executive authority to provide that leadership. the phone has been raining off the hook to deal well on all of these initiatives could the pen is off the ink. we have more initiatives to provide opportunities for people. whether it is people working overtime, billions of whom may be eligible for raises when we enacted the regulation on overtime. we will continue to work on those areas, the president will continue to exert leadership there. we have seen leadership at a state and local level as well, because we see so many states who are not waiting for congress to act in the minimum wage paid leave and other issues of that nature because they recognize that so many people need a raise, and they are not waiting for congress. we see that leadership. i see continued leadership from the labor movement and other nonprofit leaders who are helping, for instance, in the fast food movement. those are great example of so many people working together. i see people who come in the labor movement, they define success not simply by the size of the membership, but the number of people they help area that is what shared prosperity is about. it is about helping your neighbor. i see in my work every day, every week, the business community. employers tell you that income inequality and wage stagnation are defining economic challenges of our time. they are telling me that investments in their workers is an investment in the strength of their company. they are rejecting the false choices that are holding us back from shared prosperity. we simply stick notion that paying high wages undermines competitiveness, or come collective bargaining heard's economic growth, or that you can take care of your shareholders or your employees, but not both. they understand the treaty workers with dignity and respect isn't just a nice thing to do, it is good for your bottom line. the bcorp folks see themselves not only is accountable to their shareholders, but a broader universe of stakeholders. people who have esop's have the same thing. $1 trillion in that area. they understand the high road is the smart road, and they are taking that road. the gap has made a commitment to paying above the minimum wage, and have an emphasis on pay equity and promotion of women. if you look to the new york times, you would see that prospective employees are drawn to places like the gap, and they had a 24% increase in their applications since they announced their policies. we see so many examples, whether it is the bcorp movement, or individual corporations like gap and so many others. you see it in every single business model around, whether it is cosco, the gap, whether it is so many others across the country. theynderstand that we have got to look long term. i had one ceo was said to me he was talking about a renegade shareholder, who wasn't interested in thinking long-term. this quote realistic in my head. this renegade shareholder was saying i would rather be rich than right. think about that. i would rather be rich than right. this ceo was saying i want to act long-term. we will continue to look long term as a nation. that is what we have to do. i want to leave you with a story about where we started. which is, our friends from market basket. they have done or markable work. -- remarkable work. they have captured the imagination of the nation. they have done really a service. they have demonstrated that you can do good and do well. what we really need are more companies like market basket. more partnerships like the uaw and the ford motor company. these guys risk everything because they believed that a market basket without the ceo was not worth being a part of. workers say the company was like second family. mark worked 34 years there, now his sun is an assistant manager. he talked about how they would start every day by emphasizing what he called our most precious customers. christie will tell you that he always said we are in the people business first in the grocery business second. mark will talk about the time when the founder of the company came into the store the first date opened, and mark said to him, thank you for trusting me to run one of your stores. and he grabbed him and said mark, remember, it is our store. not my store. we can talk to all these folks because they are in the middle-of-the-road here, along with others. they are all here. this is what we are about. they have shown that shared prosperity is indeed a reality of this country. we can do this. it is our store. just like it is our economy. it belongs to all of us. it is not functioning as it works for everyone. i want to leave you not simply with the words of their boss, but with the words of another boss. his name is bruce springsteen. [laughter] who said, you know what, nobody wins unless everybody wins. i think we can get there is a nation. thank you so much. [applause] >> if you could remain here, and join me. we will try to do some rapidfire questioning. the unemployment rate has been falling in recent months for a how reflective is it of the real economic situation? >> for people like catherine hackett, who i met -- she introduced the president and one of the long-term unemployed events. she had been unemployed for three years, and she has a job now. it is a reality for her now. she has punched her ticket to the middle class. too many other people as i described are still struggling. too many long-term unemployed for instance. the figures are getting better. and too many people who are working hard and haven't had a raise in years. that is really the challenge for us. we are moving in the right direction, but we have to pick up the pace of growth and make sure that the prosperity that comes with growth is shared by everyone. >> how happy are you with the quality of the jobs created during this recovery? >> i have heard some who have said this recovery has been a low-wage recovery. if you actually look, i see the commissioner here. if you look at the last year, the area that have the most growth in jobs was this is an professional services. over 700,000, if memory serves me. these are accountants. a majority of these jobs are accountants, architects, jobs that pay quite well. we have seen immense growth there. low-wage jobs tend to be the first jobs to be lost. and they have come back as well. what we need to do is work on these jobs that are the middle class, middle skill jobs. that is why our skills agenda and our voice agenda, i think they can lead to prosperity across the board. >> you have said you haven't given up the push to revise emergency and employment benefits. at this late stage in the recovery, how many weeks of benefits do you think are the right amount for for unemployed jobseekers? >> i haven't given up the fight, and i applaud the efforts of jack reed, senator heller from nevada, and senator collins from maine. it has been a bipartisan effort in the senate. that is because once again, this issue is a bipartisan issue. historically. never in the history of our nation has congress, with long-term employment rates as high as they were in december of last year, failed to extend emergency unemployment compensation. never until last december. i sure wish that leader boehner would do what i do, which is meet with long-term unemployed as i try to do every several months. when you meet them, you understand they need to extend these benefits. it is not a lifestyle. >> the obama administration has not been able to push through an increase in the minimum wage so far. is there any reason to think that will change after the midterms, or are we in for two more years of grinding and gridlock? >> i don't have a crystal ball, but i can tell you the american people want results. i worked in local and state government. what i liked about that was we could deliver results and got things done. that is what the president wants to do. he wants to work with anyone and everyone of immigration reform, transportation infrastructure, minimum wage, any of these issues. i think you continue to ignore the will and needs of the american voter at your peril. we will continue to work with anyone and everyone across an ideological spectrum who is interested and willing to come up with common sense middle ground. compromise is not a dirty word for me, or this president. but regrettably for some, it is a talking point in a campaign. >> silicon valley business leaders are demanding immigration reform because they say there aren't enough workers to fill the demand for high-tech engineers. what steps are you taking to make certain that america remains a leader in the tech field? >> i have spent a lot of time with folks in the silicon valley. the silicon valley leadership group just released about one week ago, a book they have with essays from 20 different leaders across the ideological spectrum. i had the privilege of adding one of those pieces. what i love about immigration reform, and this is not new. is that the support is bipartisan. i hear from labor unions, we need immigration reform it. by here from silicon valley we need immigration reform it. i hear from facebook. everybody, that we need immigration reform. that is what it was like when it worked for senator kennedy. we did 80 amendments in a committee want to work for him. i need one hand to count the number of partyline votes, because this has never been a partisan issue. the stories that i hear from both the silicon valley, from people whose families have been broken up very they tell your heart out. we can do better. that is why we will continue to advocate, and the president isn't waiting. that is why he will continue to take aggressive executive action. but there is no substitute for it bill. we can't help everyone by executive action. >> what ideas -- i know we are trying to go through rapidfire q&a -- what ideas do you have the fix detroit, the rust belt, and other cities that have not been able to retool or rebuild in the present day? >> we asked to have a detroit task force. some of the most vexing challenges confronting america are requiring unprecedented levels of interagency collaboration. that is why we have been working together with the cap in detroit like never before. one of the biggest challenges that they have there is they don't have a regional transit authority. think about it. we are trying to bring more jobs into detroit, and we been successful so far. we need to pick up the pace. so many of the jobs are out of the suburbs, and if you can't get there, how can you work there? we are working together on transportation issues and skills and for structure. so may people are not trained for the jobs of today and tomorrow. we are working to build a seamless structure of education from cradle to grave that will enable people to be prepared for those jobs. those are examples of things that we continue to do. i think the stovepipe implosion will help not only detroit but many other cities. >> if governor scott walker wins another term on november 4, it means he will successfully taken on the public employee unions. what that encourage other governors, especially republican ones, to do the same in their states? what will that mean for public employee unions? >> i will not going to speculate on who will win elections on november 4. every state has the ability to enact laws in the labor context. i think the efforts that took place in wisconsin and elsewhere were not in the best interest of workers. we watched a states like ohio, you saw a remarkable unsuccessful push back against efforts to limit voice. i think voice is an indispensable part of shared prosperity. whether it is labor unions, collective bargaining, supporting works councils, supporting organizations like the domestic workers alliance, whether it is supporting bcorps, the more we can do to support voice in any way shape or form, the more we can do to build shared prosperity. >> a little personal. what was your first job, and how did it shape your life? >> growing up in buffalo, new york, my first job -- i had three paper routes. we used to have a morning paper, the courier express. i had that. i shagged all falls in a driving range. with a helmet. some people thought i didn't have a helmet on. i worked on the back of a trash truck. i worked at sears for a number of years. all of those jobs taught me the dignity of work and the value of whatever job you are at. you give your best, you work your hardest. >> now, to your next job, maybe. attorney general holder been a lightning rod throughout his tenure at the justice department. why is that, and what can his successor due to prevent becoming a lightning rod? >> eric holder stood up for voting rights. eric holder stood up for common sense criminal justice reform. eric holder ended up working on issues like reducing the crack powder disparity in a bipartisan way in congress. these are many of the defining issues of our day. when you are going to work on some of these defining issues of our day, you will have folks who oppose you. i do not believe come as we prepare to celebrate the 50th anniversary of what he sunday, i don't believe the enduring voting issue 50 years later is in person voter fraud. i don't believe that because i did these cases when i was over there. that is a phantom problem. when eric holder says things like that, people disagree with him. i applaud his candor, and the movement they have done in that area. >> what should be the justice department's top priorities? [laughter] >> i have not studied at issue since i was at the department of labor. i can tell you the department of labor's priorities should be putting people back to work, continuing the pace of growth, and making sure that we have shared prosperity. [laughter] >> we do have two more in the area of a possible next job. >> i'm talking about my day job here. [laughter] >> attorney general holder says he won't send journalists to jail for doing their job, suggesting that in new york times reporter is unlikely to spend time behind bars. specifically he said in an interview with msnbc, he's that i stand by what i said. no reporter is going to jail as long as i'm attorney general. would you maintain a position, should you happen to become attorney general? or if not, do support that position? >> my singler focus is on the job of being at the department of labor. i know the attorney general very much values the role of the press as the fourth branch of government. he served under general reno. he often participated in her weekly conferences, whether it was good news, bad news, or indifferent. he was out there with her in those press briefings. he understands the critical importance of the press in so many aspects of our lives. >> we return to the labor department for a few questions. are employers doing their part to train workers, or his on-the-job train disappeared? >> one of the most exciting trance for missions in our workforce system that we are seeing is the remarkable level of employee engagement. we cannot succeed, in the advanced manufacturing i talked about. it's designed with the input of the industry. when you hire someone, you know what you are getting. that level of employer engagement is one of the linchpins of our transformation. the reason is because too many employers were telling me that they were hiring folks. they had a credential, but they didn't know what was behind it. now that they are actively engaged in the development of that credential, they have skin in the game it. they understand it. as a result, they can do some at more. >> union strength and influence continues to decline in this country. so have a number of factors related to worker security and satisfaction. how do we bring about -- how we bring back protections and fair pay and benefits to workers in this area of corporate rights and diminishing worker esteem? >> we start out by studying the experience of our neighbors to the north. the new york times had a story about how the middle class of the united states is not faring as well as the middle class elsewhere. they use canada as one example. for me, as i studied this issue, why is the middle class faring better in canada? their union density is over twice with union density is america. it's about 26%. versus 11% and change here in the united states. look at places like germany, where you have very low youth unemployment. very robust economy. you have robust union density. again, it gets back to this issue a voice. we need to make sure that we have multiple mechanisms to give workers a level playing field. when we do that, as volkswagen in summary others have demonstrated, it works to the benefit of workers, employers, and communities alike. >> how can we close the wage gap without collective bargaining? >> i think collective bargaining is a very important part of the mix here. the health of the middle class and the strength of the union movement, when you study history, go hand-in-hand. the greatest generation, as tom brokaw you should talk about, they not only defended our nation and really defended democracy, but when they came back to the united states, what they ended up doing was -- they were our laborers, and forepeople. they were the folks that helped accelerate the entry of the united states into the middle class. that greatest generation wasn't simply great on the battlefield. right in the workplace. one of their major compliments was that they help to grow the middle class through the importance of collective bargaining, through standing up for workers. we see so many examples, whether it is costco -- if you bought $1000 worth of costco stock 15 years ago, you would have 15,000 dollars now. they've outperformed the s&p 500 index significantly. other companies, similar examples across every business model. airlines. when i go to bwi airport, southwest airlines pays their baggage handlers a fair wage. you go up 95 to newark, and many of them as a result of a decision by some of the legacy carriers, they are making the minimum wage. i was up there talking to them a few months back. that doesn't have to be that way. low wages are a choice, not a necessity. there are so many samples of that. >> thank you. we are all set of time. but before asking the last question, we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first of all -- one minute, we have an issue here. we will get to the mug later. first of all, i would like to remind you about two upcoming speakers luncheons on october 21, tomorrow. scott blackmun, president and ceo of the u.s. olympic committee. on november 7, robert mcdonald, secretary of veterans affairs. i would like to present you with our traditional mug come and we have done it so that it is lightweight and easily portable, just in case you need to move offices. [laughter] >> and less than $20. >> if i can ask you the last question, in the labor department, can they do anything about the employment situation of journalists? [laughter] >> there are a few things that keep me up at night more than the employment situation of journalists. what we do is, we hire more journalists so that they can tell our stories. journalists like so many others have similar challenges. i hope you continue to do the great work you are doing to shine a light. when i signed your book, i said you are the fourth branch of government. thank you for yout time. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> today, the big 12 conference hosts a for him on the state of college athletics. a panel of university officials discuss the money involved in college athletics and how it is spent. a discussion on whether student athletes are employees of the school for whom they play. live coverage from the national press club on c-span. be part of c-span's campaign 2014 coverage. follow us on twitter and like a fun facebook get the faith date -- date -- debate schedules. stay in touch and engage by --tware and us unsafe following us on twitter kind us on facebook -- and fighting us on facebook. -- liking us on facebook. >> i'm amanda curtis and i approve this message. i'm amanda curtis. the only way to change washington is to elect folks who know what is like when times are tough. i come from a family that is a lot like most other montana families. i want to be a chance for working families like mine. working montanans deserve one of us in the u.s. senate. >> steve day is a fifth-generation montanan. he understands how important hunting, fishing are to the montana heritage. he is fighting to increase our access to public land. areas arounding glacier national park and is protecting our montana way of life. >> former house speaker dennis hester and for minority leader richard gephardt discuss the environment now versus when they served. from the washington center, it is one hour and 20 minutes. [laughter] [applause] er was thest longest-serving republican speaker in history. richard gephardt is president and ceo of gephardt group governors affairs and provides strategic advice before the house, executive, and legislative branch. mr. gephart served 28 years in the house from 1976 to 2004 representing missouri's third congressional district, home to his birthplace st. louis, missouri. he was house majority leader 1989 to 1995, and minority leader 1995 to 2003. how much money did you have to raise to get elected back then? the grand sum of $70,000 for two campaigns. the primary was highly contested and the general election. >> $70,000. mr. speaker, you were a coach, highschoool coach, and you were offered a job, i believe, as a principal. but then you went to congress. how did your role as being a coach help you in your role as speakership? >> i think first of all, in your role as coach you had to look at what was the best thing for the team and how do you move a group of people forward and get things done. i think the skills you built during the those days of coaching are the same skills you did in leadership. had you to bring people along. you set goals, you tried to achieve those goals, and you tried to move forward. the interesting thing is when i was offered a job of a prince pal, assistant principal, you know, i looked at the principal's office where i worked, i saw him work every day. he had the same seven or eight chairs every day with the same kids in them. smoking in the johns, raising problems on the school bus. and i thought, i'm not sure i want to do that. the other side were the teachers. they didn't want to ride the fan bus on friday night, they wanted to move somebody out of their class. i said, i didn't want to do this the rest of my life. i ended up running for legislature, never dreaming i would end up as leadership of congress and never dreamed i would be speaker of the house. and out my door were the same seven or eight chairs every day with the same seven or eight people. [laughter] >> now there are historic lows. what is the cause of that? is it the media's fault? is it twitter? >> i think you have to start this discussion by understanding that congress is usually unpopular. there is a good reason for it. congress is a huge organization. it is 535 people, and they are trying to reach agreement on very controversial, emotional issues in the country. so it is always hard for them to operate, for them to make those decisions. i always say, politics is a substitute for violence. it really is. when people come here, they find out there are 534 other people in the building. in many countries, one person makes the decisions or a small group. here we have this huge group. so it is always hard. lately it has been a little harder than usual. i chalk it up to the fact that we had the worst recession since the great depression from 2007 or 2008 until just recently. when you have a big recession, a lot of people lose their jobs, lose their house, lose their pensions. they get angry, understandably, and they tend to send people to represent them who are equally angry, and having made up their minds that these are the answers, and it's going to be my way or the highway. so there has been less willingness to compromise on some of the important issues. i think that's changing as we speak. i think people who came with that frame of mind are starting to either change their mind or they are leaving congress. so i'm an optimist. i think in the days ahead, you are going to get back to a more normal situation stwen the congress, within the congress and with whoever is president. and i think you will get a better atmosphere. but remember, it is always hard. it was hard when we were there, and it was hard when anybody is there because the issues are tough, they are controversial, and everybody has a different opinion in that group of 535 of what to do. >> are you optimistic as well? >> yeah, i'm optimistic. look, this is the best governmental system in the world, as far as i'm concerned. you can talk about the problems that we have. yet, if you want real democracy, real participation, this is where it's at. i think most people around the world, if they had the opportunity, they would be here in this country. i see some of the same problems that my colleague sees. we were just across the river. his district in zhruse st. louis, my district of illinois are pretty close together. you know, i learned a long time ago that when i was serving in the illinois legislature, i took a -- there are a couple people in the illinois legislature, i just couldn't understand where they were coming from. they were always getting up, they were anti-farmer, anti-business, and they were just, i thought, protaganists all the time. so i got on a train in springfield, went from springfield to st. louis, and i passed through the district these folks came from. i was down in what they call "gob down below." it was all closed down factories. it was refineries that were closed and broken up. it was very, very dire. i learned, you know, everybody that's in the congress, everybody that's elected comes from some place. they represent a group of people. one thing you have to realize, being a leader, everybody has a right to be there, so everybody has a right to be heard, and everybody has a right to be part of the process. the process isn't always pretty, but it is constantly trying to move people together. i think what the leader did and what i had to do is constantly put people around the table to try to fine some con sessous -- concensus to move forward. i'm not sure that's happening today. >> one of the questions is if the senate will flip. on the day after the 2014 election, we'll be talking about 2016 politics, will hillary run. of course the answer to that is yes, but everyone is watching her very closely. [laughter] mr. gephart, you ran for president twice. what was that like? how was it different in the two times that you ran? >> well, it was a terrific experience. it is a fabulous country and the people are fabulous. that's all i can tell you. when you go out and try to get people to help you and people do without asking for anything. they don't want anything, they just want good government, they let you stay in their house, they go door-to-door for you. they give you money, they give you food. it is an incredible experience because of the greatness of this country and the greatness of the people both times i really enjoyed it. we put people to a tough test. it's a good test. we have to go through new hampshire, south carolina, a variety of states, and meet people one-on-one and in small groups like this. you have to make your argument, and let them know who you are, let them into why you want to do this and what your goals are, and what motivates you to do this. it is a fabulous system. it really wasn't that much different. i ran in 1988 and then in 2004. it was largely the same. the money amounts got bigger, because you know, time had gone on, inflation and so on. but the process was very similar, and the process candidates go through in 2016 will be similar to what they did in those years. >> speaker hastert, john boehner is now the speaker, and he's been battling some tea party members, and he's been struggling to move some bills, especially fiscal bills. your name has been invoked a lot. they talk about the hastert rule. does speaker boehner have the toughest job in washington? >> look, i think the speakership is a tough job. it is a job where you constantly have to bring people with different sides together to find a solution. i see this unhappy discourse that goes on in politics today somewhat as a result of legislation that passed in 2000, and it was called the mccain-feingold reform. quote, "reform" unquote. people thought the rule resulted in legislation that was skewed one way or another. so basically, the parties were eviscerated as far as a funding source for candidates. what i always thought was, the democratic party or the republican party was kind of a moderator. people elected to the two-party system weren't too far to the right or too far to the left. they are pretty mainstream, center-right or center-left. so what happened was, money was taken out of the political system from the parties, so money finds a place to go, and it went to the far left and the far right. not the choosing of the candidates, but the messages that are out there are paid for by people from the far right and the far left. these people are looking over their shoulders and realizing, if they don't listen, they will have a primary, and they will be challenged. it only takes a small percentage to create this kind of back-and-forth within the party. so i think speaker boehner has a tough job, but i thi think that's what speakerships are for, for people to have tough jobs and get results. constantly his task will be bringing these people to the table. i also found you have to give people responsibility. there are always people in the caucus that aren't happy what they are doing, but you have to give them a stake. get them involved. give them projects and then bring them to the table and see what you can incorporate. so it is a technique, and i think it is part of what i did in my coaching process. it is not easy, but it is, you know, they called me the speaker, they should have called me "the listener." [laughter] >> we've seen the supreme court get involved with the citizens united case. richard gephart, super p.a.c.'s, are they a part of the problem? are they a big part of the problem? >> there is no question about the problems with money and politics. we all have an idea of how important it is and what to do about it. in fact, one time long ago, i presented a constitutional amendment, which is the only way to really deal with it, if you want to deal with it, because we have freedom ever speech in the constitution. and the court has said, money equals speech. so as long as that's their opinion, if you are going to change this, if you want to change it, you have to change the constitution. so that's well ny to impossible. i don't have a brilliant answer. i have face in the people. you know, a lot more money has gone into campaigns in the last 10 years. have you super p.a.c.'s on both sides coming in with millions of dollars usually for negative ads against some candidate they are trying to beat, and i have been amatesed that the public reaction to these ads has not been what i think they expected. people are tired of this, and they are just turning it off. in my view, a lot of the super p.a.c. money is wasted money. i'm sure the tv stations are happy to have it, but i don't think they are getting the result they want. the american people are smart. they don't want -- you know, when they hear negative on this one and negative on that one, you know, they are both horrible. who do we pick? so they start getting information from other sources about who they want to vote for. so i'm not so pessimistic about this whole thing. a lot of people think it is the end of our democracy, and it is ruining our politics. i can device a better system. it is the system that we have. it is in the constitution that we have freedom of speech and people who have money can speak louder than people that don't. it's the way it is. and we just have to trust the people to ferret their way through all this information and make good decisions. i think they will do that. >> there are 435 seats in the house, and even though this congress has been called one of the worst congresses run by republicans in the house, democrats in the senate, as far as the house, 435 seats, and basically at the hill right now we are tracking 40 to 50 re-election rates. everybody in the house's spot is up every two years. is that a problem? some of the critics say it is gerrymandering and you have these districts skewed to one side or another. speaker hastert, does this need to be changed? >> you have to go back to the constitution. the constitution says it is up to the states to decide how they are going to reapportion. unless you change the constitution, again, you are not going to change the process. one famous politician once made a speech, but the fact is, it is what it is. you work with it, you live with it, sometimes states lose, sometimes they win, depending on the give and take. my state of illinois, we lost five seats on the republican side last time because people -- you know, gerrymandering, reapportionment. it plays out. what we really want is that people elect who they want and get something done. what i think people are fed up with is this business of everybody blaming everybody else. set some goals, and work toward it. you have to do it on a bipartisan basis. dick and i didn't always agree with each other, we were sometimes on the other side of the aisle, but while we were there we paid down $50 billion in public debt. that hadn't been done before and it hasn't been done since. so you can do things on a bipartisan basis. >> mr. gephart, what do you think of the idea of working together on a bipartisan basis? >> yes, i think you can. i agree with the speaker. you know, the redistricting process has always been a political process because people are trying to get more people in their districts. before we had computers, it was not a precise science. now with computer technology and google maps, we can go down and say, we know his house, he votes democrat. i want him in my district, and i want to get rid of her because she's a republican. i'll give her to the republican. so it has become very previce, and very effective, i might add. so you have districts that are 85%, 90% republican or democrat. there is a movement to try to take this away from legislatures and give it to bipartisan commissions. but that's going to be a very hard process because legislatures and political parties don't want to give up that power. i wouldn't be optimistic that a lot will change very fast. >> it is interesting the people who draw up the maps end up in congress. >> imagine that. i have just one more question, but if you have any questions, line up at the mics, and when we call on you, you can identify yourselves. one thing i wanted to ask, it is very important, when i talk to members of congress, they mention this. and because of the democratic administration, and it has happened in all administrations. basically, congress congressional democrats don't feel like president obama calls them enough. he doesn't usually golf with democrats, and is this a case -- certainly we heard this when george w. bush was in the white house as well. congressional republicans, especially when the house was launched in 2006, they were upset, and they started to publicly criticize the president for not communicating better. mr. gep hard -- gephart, is this a problem that the president, and he served in the senate, is he not communicating enough with his own party on capitol hill, or is this lawmakers that basically want to have their ego stroked? >> well, you have to sit back and look at this job we call president and what it requires somebody to do today. i think it is by far the toughest job in the world. it always has been a tough job because the president has to work closely with congress. the constitution created a lot of power in title 1. and it has to be, because the congress gives money. the congress declares war or not war. the congress sets up the gab -- approves the cabinet and other important positions. so there has always been a lot of time on task for presidents with the congress. and i guess i would say, presidents can't meet with them often enough. but we also have charged the president to be in charge of foreign policy in a world in which you are on this little bitty planet today. with today's transportation and communication, presidents are expected to talk with almost every country every day. it is a demanding job with demanding requirements. now, you always have to go to the personality of whoever is president. you know, everybody istive. some presidents like meeting with congress. bill clinton was one who relished in it, and he liked it, and he did a lot of it. i think he was effective at it. it could be, and i don't know, i'm not there, it could be president obama doesn't have that exact personality and he wants to do other things that he thinks are equally important. i'm sure he has more than enough to do 24-seven. so i don't know. you always get some complaining, i think, from members that they don't get enough time with the president and the president is not spending enough time with them. we certainly have a huge range of problems in front of the congress. i don't know. you will always get that complaint. i think everybody is doing the best they can. i think you will get more bipartisanship in the last two years of the obama administration than you have seen before, because he will want a legacy. he sees important issues like immigration, the budget, doing they may come together in the last two years more than they did in the years before them. >> i think it is an issue of who in congress has the power and who does the president have to work with. if there is a shift, which you talked about at the end of the bush administration, the shift went to the democrat side, the president has important things. to run his government, he has to get the budget done, and he has to deal with the people chairing the budget committees and chairing the plifrls -- plifrls committee, and chairing his jurisdiction. that's where he has to get his funding for his government. if it is in republican hands, that's where they have to go. if it is in democratic hands, that's where they have to go. you have to go to the leadership to get those types of things done. i think it is a natural movement to power. you constantly have this pushing back and forth. but members of congress, if they are not getting the attention they think they should, they will get angry. we really haven't had a budget in a long time that is passed by the house and passed by the senate. when we were working on each side of the aisle, we pass the budget and the budget had to be out by the 15th of march. it had to be reconciled the april 15. everybody had their numbers. so that process went through. if that process moves through, everything else moves through with it. when it doesn't happen, then you and up -- set yourself up, i think, for a logjam in congress and i think that is basically what has happened. of yourr as both careers, we have seen that as a leader, you're going to have members were going to get into trouble, get into scandal. we had famously a former member that stashed $90,000 in his freezer. you can only imagine, when the leader gets that news, he did what? is that the toughest part you do with that? there was a scandal in the house election process. is that the toughest part? conversely, what is the most reporting -- rewarding part? >> i think the most rewarding part is getting things done and sing things happen that are good things for the american people and for our nation. tax reform, we did energy reform, we get health care reform, we did medicare reform. we did a lot of things that report important to the american people plus we had something , 9/11, widow01 make sure this country was secured. we would not let those types of episodes ever happen in this country again. kind of made a pact with ourselves. we went away from a peacetime situation to a wartime situation and make sure this country was safe. that was a whole different aspect. leadership is many faceted. working with the members of congress, bringing people together, getting things done, i think was the greatest satisfaction i had. you had to work with the president on both parties. i was able to do that. you build those relationships. politics is how people treat each other. , whatever form or level you take it, is people relating to each other and being able to express to each other. and finally, getting results out of it. so it is the relationships that you build. i think that was the biggest that the goodelt, relationships that we were able to build on both sides of the aisle. >> the toughest thing i was involved in, similar to what the speaker said, and it was the balancing of the budget over a 10 year period. it took 10 years. it was the hardest thing ever got involved in. bob michael was the leader, and bob dole. newt gingrich came in and speaker hastert came. it ran through all of those leaders. we all worked together over a 10 year it was excruciatingly hard. i want you to understand how hard it was. we worked on each of those deals for over a year apiece. and sometimes after we had gotten all of the work done and everybody was totally unhappy, which is the definition of a compromise -- [laughter] the floor and on lost. many times. and we had to regroup and put it back together and bake people to vote for it. -- begged people to vote for. harry truman said leadership is getting people to do things they really don't want to do. that is a lot of what you deal with when you're leading the congress and leading the country, is getting people to accept things they really don't want to accept for the good of the whole in a long-term. that is the issue. said, you are a listener. you have to listen constantly everybodysly to what wants to say. i used to say the house, process is everything. why did i say that? meanse the process whoever i am, i feel i was fairly heard and i had a chance to win, and even if i didn't, the process was fair. so i will put up with a bad result that i did not want. the magic of democracy is that you go through all this disagreement and all this time -- and part of the reason people hate congress is because it takes so long to make a decision. people think congress is like one person. 535. so when they finally get it done, what you get from all of that is the losers -- and there are losers on every issue -- the asers don't want to pick up rifle or leave the country. that is the magic of democracy. because you put 535 people in the room, and all of their viewpoints and the country were heard, and then they voted and there was an outcome and you move on. and the losers don't want to leave in anger, and you can have another boat another day and go on to other issues and make the country better. >> you both mentioned listening as something you have to do. i imagine a lot of listening you ore to keep from groaning rolling her eyes. we have some questions. i'm sure they are much better than mine. please identify yourself and ask your question. alexis andy name is i'm from pennsylvania. both of you mentioned campaign-finance reform and the election process. you mentioned can find gold the need for constitutional amendment to address the issue of campaign finance reform. therefore, i wanted to know your opinion on senate joint resolution 19 which is the constitutional amendment that should be coming up for a vote after the election which would address this issue. think i said it is ye to a possible to pass a constitutional amendment, and i believe that is what i believe it is not a bad issue to come up. it is not wrong to discuss it and to try to do things, and there are a lot of different ideas for campaign reform. but as i said, probably to be effective, you got to change something in the constitution to do that. i think it is because you have to get two thirds of both houses and then three quarters of the state legislatures to approve w,hoa, you're talking 30 years at least. so it is just really hard. i look for other things that aren't institutional that might help the process. their ideas for revenue sharing if they raise small contributions, they get money that philanthropists to give to a fund that would come to them to match small contributions. so there are a number of ideas like that around that might help, but that is my thought. >> the basis of the elected, going out, running. i remember my first campaign. i was a schoolteacher. -- if a sudden, i had to had to raise probably $10,000. that was a huge amount of money. it was bigger than the salary i had at the time. how do you do this? people give you $25 or $50 or maybe $100. i remember a friend of mine gave me $1000. it was like, wow, it was christmas all over. so what you have to do is, when people give you money or contribute to the campaign, those are the people who vote for you. those are the people who support you because they like your ideas in your part of the community. i have always said that if you have some type of regimen where you are not leased half -- you raise about half your money for your district, from the people you're going to elect two, the people who would to the polls and supported you and you had the ability to build an organization out of those people, that is where money really talks. if you do half from your district and you can raise the other half wherever you want to as long as you had it out there and some transparency so people know where you had your money, i think those are the two things. local support and transparency. however you get into election reform, i think those two have to be the centerpiece of it. >> this side of the room? >> i go to st. lawrence university. you both talked about how the american democracy is so great because it brings everyone to the table and everyone can have a voice. i was wondering what your experience was working with women and minorities in the house and senate? because right now, the house and senate aren't very diverse with women and minorities. i was wondering if you could talk a little bit about that in women and minorities not only in the house and senate, but in leadership roles, also. >> well, i think if you had asked this 30 years ago, you would have been more troubled by the lack of diversity in the house and in the leadership of the house. i think it has changed a lot. i think the house today is much, much more representative of the diversity of the american people . i can't give you the exact numbers. maybe the speaker would know them. in terms of women, it is a much larger number. when i came to the house and 1976, you could've put all of the women in a phone booth in the house. now it is a very large number. minorities, similar. it is a much larger number. of course, we've had court cases on civil rights as it applies to redistricting in the house. and that has made it possible for many more minorities to win office. one of the things i have loved about the house was that it really did represent the american people. when you are out on that floor and a big vote, where there was a lot of isagreement, it was -- there nothing more exciting. it is more exciting than basketball or football because it is -- everything is hanging out. it is all over the place. everybody is represented and it is a very diverse organization. so i think we have come a long way in the right direction and i'm really proud of what has happened in the country. people said, don't you miss coaching? we had competition every day. you did not miss it. we worked hard to bring women into the leadership role in the house during my time as speaker in those head to earth or women who set on our leadership group. but yet always do better. we had a lack of minority groups in the republican party in our conference. program or retry to bring in interns and minority groups. it was tough to do. hardly just because of the makeup of the parties. that is were we have to strive. from my side, our party, we are missing the boat on doing some reform on integration because you can't close down. the parties have the best effectiveness are the parties who can open up and bring more people to the program. if her republican is ever going to get elected as president, he asked to be able to do with conservative democrats and independents. you can just do your own small group of people. we have to constantly have and its that lift people works for women and minorities of elite. >> and other members have said unless republicans join an immigration reform, they're not going to win -- one lawmaker said they will never went another presidency. do you think if they win congress come they should put immigration at the top of their agenda? >> it is the consequences of doing that. you have to face the issue. i think it is a real issue. are some good answers on the republican side and some good answers on the democrat side. you have to take a little bit of each. my personal view is, i did a lot of years working on illegal drugs coming into the united states because we lost 16,000 kids a year in drug or drug violence. i learned a lot about the borders because 75% of it comes across the borders. we have to have good border control. we have to know who comes across the border. not to say we can't let people in, but we have to have the places to let people in and let them know. there needs to be border control but on the other side, you can give other issues as well. people.s how many 10 million, 13 million, i don't know how people are. the little town that i live in, country town, probably 60 miles west of chicago, 43% of high schools are hispanic. they are there. you have to legitimize those people and give them a green card or whatever kind of card and say, your legitimate in this country. there's no place else for you to go. on the other hand, if you want to be a citizen, get in line and be a citizen like anyone else. i think are some reasonable answers. there are reasonable issues to come together, and they have to come together, and do it in a bipartisan way. >> i agree with the speaker. i think something will get done on immigration probably next year. and i also think, if people really stop and think about it, the diversity of our country is our greatest strength. it is our greatest strength. when i think back over my lifetime, you know, i grew up in the 1950's, and what civil rights were then and what they are now, it's like a different country. there is no resemblance to what went on in the 1950's. when people come to this country from anywhere else, it is the only country in the world where people say to themselves the first day they are here, "i'm an american. i'm an american." that is a huge strength. this is a huge deal for americans going forward, and i think they will get it done. >> hello. i am from brazil. i have a question about representatives. right now the united states has a population of roughly 320 million and a little more than 500 people in congress. that's a lot of interests to represent. so my question is, isn't it time for us to improve our system of democracy now that we have access to technology? isn't it time to come up with some inventive way that allows people to deal with this broad and complex issues that the congress has to deal with every day? >> well, i think we believe in and believe the representative democracy is the best system. if you are asking, should we go to direct democracy and have all the population vote on all the issues, i don't think that's a good solution. that's my opinion. i think we decided that a long time ago. i don't think that's going to change. i do think we could improve people's ability to vote in elections. and my personal meach belief, and i've talked to people in the technology world, is that we're very close to being able to let people vote online for a candidate and maybe express views to representatives about issues without fraud and without worrying that people are misusing the system. and i really believe we can get there. and that will be a big improvement. if you can bank online, you ought to be able to vote online. i think once we get there, you will have more participation in democracy, and that's a good thing. then if you follow that up with more conversation between the people and their elected officials in an organized way, i think that's a positive thing. >> as long as you don't overdraw your account, right? [laughter] >> from the time i got involved in politics until the time i bowed out in about 2008, we could get on a teleconference and have about 10,000 people in the conversation. someone asking questions and in real-time getting answers and getting people involved. there are a lot of things -- the polling and the things that you can do electronically to connect people, i think we've really seen a revolution. all the things that happen, the tweeting and the blogs and everything, i grew up in the 1950's, too. this is beyond me. this is a new technology. it is time for an old guy to bow out. but today, the american youth and the american people are so lucky to have such a great opportunity to be connected and talk about ideas. i think it is ripe for real democracy. elected democracy can only get better because of it, i think. >> good afternoon. my name is emily dacey and i'm a junior at the university of massachusetts. i have a question regarding the recent change in legislation and regarding campaign contributions. as a middle class college student, and i'm sure you know, the last 20 years the average price of college has gone up over five times. that being said, at least for me with the debt i'm in, it is going to be very difficult for me to move past my current status as a middle class citizen. that being said, i'm a bit of concerned by the lack of pessimism and dairy say optimism -- there i say optimism, toward this recent change in law. i believe you said people with more money get to speak more, that's just how it is. and to be frank, i'm really not ok with that because i see that as my voicing less. so i would just like to ask why you feel that way? >> i wasn't saying i feel that way, i was saying the supreme court feels that way, and their opinion has more weight than mine. they have decided the case, and until a court in the future changes that ruling, that's the law of the land. that's the way the constitution has been interpreted. i said, you know, i'm interested in anybody's ideas for how to change it. i think it is very hard to change the constitution, i'm just not at all optimistic about that. i would look for other solutions that are constitutional that would move the system in the right direction. like, you know, if you raise x amount of dollars through small contributions you would raise a philanthropic fund that would match that to you as a candidate if you spent the time, as speaker did and i did, raising contributions in lieu of contributions from your district. that is moving in the right direction, but it would pass constitutional muster. >> one of the issues she raised is about the rising cost of tuition. that is something many people -- both parties haven't talked about. i know a lot of people, around our kitchen table, we talk about it. is this something policymakers need to focus on? as she mentioned tuition has trippled or quadrupled. >> it is a real issue. i was talking to janet napalatano the other day. she's at the university of california. 46 campuses. millions of students. she was saying half of the students in the system come from families that earn $50,000 a year or less and they virtually spend no money on their education. so it is picked up either by the state or through scholarships or loans or other things. and i understand what you are saying about loans. if you come out of college with huge amounts of loans, you will be working a long time to get out of debt. there is no simple, easy answer to it. we have had active loan programs at the federal level. we have had grant programs, pell grants, so on and so forth. we probably need more of that. we also, i know in my view, i'd like to see a plan where if a graduate gives time in public service, whatever that might be, whether it is americorps or the military or if you are a doctor, you go to a rural area for a certain period of time, that would forgive the loan to a large extent. that would make sense to me. if people owe less, they do well economically. we know that for a fact. the more we can do to help people get an education and then not be burdened with 2010 years, -- 10 years, 20 years of debt payment, the better off we're all going to be. i think it is the best investment we can make. >> thank you. i do apologize if i came off as anything other than courteous. >> that's ok. nest question. >> i'm dakota. i'm from texas christian university. i wonder if you think it would be beneficial to increase urgency to resolve some of the issues we face today? >> term limits have been around for a long time. when we did the contract for america, that was one of the -- term limits was one of the things that was in that, one of the 10 issues. it's the only one that really didn't get past. we as members -- i remember a guy that had been here 36 years and he was for term limits. he always voted for, but it never happened. seriously, i think if you go to a doctor and he's been practicing for 10 or 12 years and he knows his craft very well, i think you probably have a better service than someone that just came right out of med school. i think there is a value of people who are in and work to learn and go through the system. now, granted, there are some people that get into congress, and i call them "plops" they get into congress and they just kind of plop there and don't do anything. that is their constituency. you have a term limit of twice a year. you have a primary and a general. so you have to go back and convince people that are you doing the job they elected you to do. that's a responsibility for every congressperson. you have to do that twice. -- twice every cycle. i think there's a real test on term limits, and that's called the election. i think -- what should it be? 20 years? 10 years? 8 years? when is a person most effective? as long as a person goes to work and keeps in touch with his constituency and tries to do good things for his district, then, you know, he probably deserves to be re-elected. that's up to the people who elect him. that's an issue for his constituency. >> i agree with that. i used to get asked this question all the time in town hall meetings. i would say i'm for term limits. we have them. in the house, it is two years, and then the people decide. i don't know wr why we want to take that decision away from the people. that's what we are doing with term limits saying you can only be there six years. you really saying to the people of the district, your decision no longer holds after six years. you have to make a decision. not going to let you do that anymore. i think it is undemocratic. i don't think it makes any sense. i also agree with the speaker. you know, if you were going to get your brain operated on, you would ask the surgeon if he had ever done it before, not "i hope this is your first operation." so i think being in congress is as hard as being a brain surgeon. maybe harder and more consequential for more people's lives. i think we ought to leave it to the people. i think the system the way it is can work well. >> i think there is another detriment, too, that happens. if a person cycles and can only be in the house four years or six years, the senate six years, all of a sudden the people making decisions are the bureaucrats or the staff that's been there forever. they all of a sudden become controling. and i think you will find in some states with term limits, the staff of the people are the people making the decisions because they had the institutional knowledge, and the people cycling through don't have it. so i think there's a real detriment. crexendo the argument is the intelligence community, a big function of congress is oversight. a lot of members have said that some in the intelligence committee have said, certainly there is a new member on the intelligence committee. they don't understand the lingo. it is the smart congressmen who will stop them and stop use the acronyms. certainly, that is the power of the executive branch has too much power now. i just know a lot of people would not want their congressman doing brain surgery on them. that would be one thing. >> i from florida southern college. over the past couple years we've seen some of the dangers, shall we say, of a divided congress and what that can do to a system. can you speak about what happens if we have a united congress under one party, but a different party in the power and the presidency. >> well, first of all, if you have a -- i'm not going to say it's going to happen. but if you have a republican senate and a republican house, in order to get anything done, you still have to negotiate something with the president who has veto power. so there is a balance. maybe there will be less things done. probably the maximum time to get things done is to have a party of both the house and the senate and the president, but rarely does that happen. that's when the congress really achieve a lot of things. but you are usually going to have a lot of -- a divided congress or a divided congress as opposed to the executive office. then you have the checks and balances of the constitution. that's really why our forefathers wrote the constitution the way they did so that nobody has unbridled power. usually it is divided. that means it is a lot of wringing of hands and counting votes. people say, hastert rule, the hastert vote is 218 votes, you can move on. if you don't have 218 votes, you can't move it. constantly what the process is in the house and the senate is finding enough votes to move your legislation and then of course, it gets passed in the senate, coming back to a real conference committee, and having that result be able to move again through the house and the senate. it is a long process to move a piece of legislation, especially big legislation. but ultimately, you would have to be able to negotiate with the executive department to make sure that something that even after all this work can be signed. you can't go through all that work and not have it signed. it's for not. >> i think it is important to look at a parliamentary system as opposed to our system. there is a real big difference, as the speaker just said. in britain or in france or in germany, the head of the party in the parliament is the prime minister. they run the government. and if you are a member of the ruling party in those systems, you all vote together. you are expected to vote together, yes, on the party's position on every vote. there is nobody off the reservation. it is a very simple system. it is designed to move a little faster than our system. i don't think it would work here, and i don't think it is the right system for the united states because we are a large country -- 320 million people, on our way to 400 million, maybe a half a billion -- we are the most diverse country in the world. we probably have more division and variances in opinion of any country in the world. and you have to allow for that. so our system has division of power. our ancestors dispersed the power to a fair the well, and i'm glad they did because nobody can get their hands on the wheel and run the bus alone. the president has to have the congress and a vote and you have to review what you have to go through. you can get the house to vote for something, then you have to get the senate to vote for it, and they have the filibuster and all of that, which means you need a super majority probably in the senate. then, when they get done, they have to reconcile their differences. then, if they can do that and get another vote in both houses that the reconciliation is acceptable, then you go to the president. and if he says "no," you start all over again. you are back to go. i mean, it is incredibly difficult to get anything done. but that, again, allows people, i believe, when it is all said and done, if i lose in that process, i don't want to leave the country or pick up a rifle. and that is what we gain from all that trouble that we go through. so i think it is the right system for us. the other system may be better for other countries. that's their business. but i think this is the best system for america. >> i think in the 1990's, i know some of the people in this room were probably in their diapers in the 1990's, but you had a democratic president with a wrin -- republican congress and a fair amount got done -- the balanced budget act, welfare reform -- so we could be headed for that dynamic again, but we shall see. >> i'm daniel salazar. i go to texas christian university. my question is both about gerrymandering and term limits. i was wondering, how can a system with no term limits be useful when 70% to 80% of the house is decided in the primaries. they are not even decided in the general election. you don't have the full voting block. doesn't that perpetuate the problem? >> i have an answer with that. i had breakfast with a good friend about six months ago. he said, what happens today -- it used to be about april you started looking over your shoulder and you wonder who your general opponent is going to be. now you look over your shoulder to see who your primary opponent is going to be. it is just the nature of the place. it is tougher. it puts -- most people are in a situation where you have two elections. you have a primary election, and then you have a general election. if you are not towing the line, if you are not conservative enough or moderate enough, someone is going to come after you. so the primaries have become very, very focused or very contested lately. especially in a district where you talk about districts that get p.a.c. if districts that get p.a.c., if you are in the other party, you want to put all your adversaries in one group and it opens up more options for your party to be in a majority, gerrymandering. so if you are in a district with 75%, 80% of your party, you know in the primary, you are going to draw people against you, same thing on the democratic side. >> i'm not sure that i agree that 70% are only worried about the primary. i think it is a greater percentage than it used to be, but i don't think it is that high. when you talk about gerrymandering, we talked a minute ago about that, and my thought was, if you want to change that, you really got to get more of these bipartisan commissions in states to draw the line. so you get more 50-50 districts. i think that's a good idea. i think that's where we need to go. i don't like the fact that we've come up with a lot of 80% d, or 80% r districts. i don't think it is a healthy thing. that's the only way you can change it, and i agree it should be done. >> i think an even democracy means you have an ability to compete, and if all of a sudden things are skewed one way or another, you really don't have a chance to compete. >> i want to outline what we're going to do now. speaker hastert is april to stick around. leader gephardt had a previous engagement. please thank speaker hastert and leader gephardt for being here today. [applause] i want to go back to one time during the house, health-care reporter in 2003, and the politics at the time were the republicans controlled both houses of congress. there was an outcry from seniors . seniors always vote. so is very important, they did not like the rising cost of prescription drugs. there was a push to add a medicare drug and if it gets seniors use a lot of drugs and it wasn't paid for. so you have to have this expansion of the government. remember, we are going into 2004, president george w. bush up for reelection, he would face john kerry. in this isppened that the conservatives did not like the expansion of medicare drug benefit and democrats did not like the bill itself. so by and large, you had this struggle to get 218 votes. it was called the longest vote because those usually the house or 15 minutes. this went three hours where george w. bush had to be woken up in the middle of the night to make calls to his bigger hastert's colleagues on the house floor who were not voting. i've always wondered, i would ask someone when i was doing reporting, how do you wake of the president? who goes in and shakes them? i never got the answer to that. it is an interesting study of the dynamics. put into a place in the 1970's because there was a need for senior health care costs. basically, in the 1970's, health-care costs were divided between two groups, doctors and hospitals. that was the primary. in 1972 if you add a heart attack on the green, you probably died. today, people are expected to live. partly because of the pharmaceuticals or the drugs available to keep people alive and healthy. the cost of drugs were not allowed in medicare, were not involved in medicare because it really wasn't an issue back in the 1970's. one of the things i thought was important, because i say whatever happens in politics as an economic consequence, whatever happens on the economic side has a political effect. seniors were not taking the drugs they were prescribed to them because they could not afford them. a senior had to make a decision whether they were going to take their diabetes drug or there heart condition drug or get their groceries. decision -- you knew what that decision was going to be. we had to do something on an economic basis, and that was to find a way to add prescription drug benefit on medicare. now, the democrats always figured medicare was there barely went. they did not really like folks going out and try to find a solution. on afelt we were pinching territory. the fact was, was an economic thing. if someone could not by their insulin or their medication for diabetes or they could not purchase the heart care medicine, they ended up come if diabetes, you probably had a limb cut off or you had renal dialysis or if your heart andent, yet a triple bypass that is something that would cost the government hundreds of thousands of dollars when you want to the doctors and hospitals to me yet, you can prevent it by giving them $30 a medication and prevent that thing. it was a preventative thing and i thought it was very important to have true health care for seniors, to have the third part of that benefit. and movedhree times it out of the house before get ever get it into the senate to pick it up. the third time we moved it out of the house, there were other consequences out there. first of all, you had a group -- this is real politics, how things happen. i probably had half a dozen of my folks go together with some democrats because they wanted to reimport drugs from canada. the drugs that were said to get it over there because of a deal that was cut during the clinton administration. only fixed cost would go on to the drug programs. canadians were buying their drugs that we use at a discount, basically. if you reimport the strokes back to the u.s., first of all, the canadians are not getting the drugs that were supposed to and it would really screw the markup in the u.s. plus, yorkshire were those trucks were coming from. they could come back in the united states and be from bangladesh or india or someplace. you don't know there are legitimate drugs or not. if you have to have drugs, they have to be legitimate, you could break that then. that was when issue. i had some conservatives that just did that want to expand medicare because they thought it was a social program and they did not want to expand it. the ability to get something done is you get 218 votes. in this case, it was 216 because we had a couple of folks that were out. under leader pelosi, basically said, she wasn't going to give us any votes. i knew i had up to 20 democrats i wanted to vote for this bill. there was aore -- deadline. the week before moving this bill forward, i had asked the president to meet with some of our people because they had concerns. there were holding out and wanted to talk to the president before they voted. the president went off to england to visit the queen or something. he was gone for a week. the night of the vote, he comes back post of the secret service puts into bed. and we can't get a call to get him to make the calls. so open a vote at 1:00 in the morning, by the time we did everything together, the amendments and the changes in things written out and distributed to everybody, it was 1:00 in the morning. not a good time to have a vote, but we're up against a deadline. it is the last of congress. we open the vote at 1:00. i finally get a hold of the president at 4:00 in the morning, three hours later. ask a call to a couple of members, they're satisfied with the answer they get, walk over and give us the two votes we need. we get the 216 votes and we have 20 democrats vote for it, too. the fact is, if you have to do this by yourself, it is pretty tough. if you really believe this is an important issue and if you did not get it done you're never going to get it done, then there was no constraint on how long a vote was open. it was tradition, but not a restraint. you had to do what you had to do to get important things done. if you look over the things we did over that eight years, that was probably one of the most important votes we did for progress in health care and the in and people. >> do you think kerry would have .on -- he on the failure the democrats would've hammered you for not getting that done. >> i'm sure it would've made a difference, but i think there are more issues between the president and the contention of the democrat rather than with the legislature did. of anittle bit off-the-wall question, but i've been told there's an interesting story behind where you work during the attacks on 9/11. given too much context, but could you tell me a little bit about where you were during the time leading up to the attacks and during them, i suppose? be here inhappen to d.c., it was a tuesday, beautiful tuesday. usually, congress does not come in until later in the day on tuesday. people are usually traveling back from their districts. i would do that, too. however, we had a tough economic situation. i wanted to talk to the president about we should bring some economists in and look over the horizon of how we should treat our tax treatment on investments because we had lost, that point, $250 billion in revenue just on capital gains. we needed to get confidence of the markets. that was the discussion we wanted to have. i knew the president wasn't going to be there on tuesday, so i had an appointment and got in there monday morning or monday afternoon. i was in my office early tuesday morning. i was downstairs at an appointment at all of there's a knock on my door that said "mr. speaker, something happened to the world trade tower and there is a fire." i walked upstairs to my office and walked in just as i saw the second plane going into the world trade tower. all of a sudden, it was pretty evident this wasn't an accident. this was some type of terror. we do not know who or why or who the players were, but we had some suspicions, but we did not know. an interesting day because we were supposed to have a joint session in congress that morning with the prime minister of australia, john howard. if you have a joint session of congress, it is a commitment on both governments to bring people together, bring their leader together. i'm thinking, maybe this is not a good idea. yet the house and senate and the supreme court and the president's cabinet and the joint chiefs of staff, a lot of that same -- all in room at one time. i'm thinking, this is probably not a good idea. if there is a act of terrorism out there, flying planes into things, maybe it is not a good place to do that. so i'm trying to get a hold of the vice president because the president, obviously, was out in air force one someplace. the vice president was in the basement of the white house with the secretary of transportation, trying to get every plane in the sky down. so every commercial plane every plane that was just a private airplane come at getting them down on the ground. we had planes coming across the atlantic, across the pacific and across the caribbean. they had to get down immediately. i am trying to get a hold of vice president cheney. i.has a secure phone as do you have to push buttons and turn a key. we were not getting through. there's a phone on my desk. i had to have fonts, a secure phone and a red phone that i got all my calls on. there's a little light and every time there's a call, the light would go off. the light went off, so they put cheney through on the red phone. it picked it up and said, hello? this guy says, what are you doing on capitol hill? taxes are too high and i don't like what you're doing with this program. the koreans are selling too much steel. i'm like, wait a minute, who is this? he said, ever mind you this is, who the heck is this? i said, i think you have the wrong number and i hung up. as i looked out the window in my desk face the front of the and i'm a great desk, looking and there is smoke coming across the mall. i'm thinking, smoke is not supposed to be her. we have smoke and mirrors, but not much snow, really, in washington. smoke, really, in washington. i get the guy who runs my office and say, sam, find out what happened. a said, i will be back in second. you get back inside, a third plane had just gone into the pentagon. anybody in thed senate. it was too early in the morning for them to be around. so i make a unilateral decision that we're going to close down congress. ever't know if that is been made before, but i was very abrasive to do it because i did not want to slide the australian government and say, sorry, prime minister, we're going to close down. i figured everybody understood this. i called the fellow in the chair. i was in my office. speaker pro tem was from florida later became the head of the cia. i said, porter, we're going to close and i wanted chaplin to come say prayer. we had a visiting chaplain. prayer andg to do a adjourn congress, get people out of here, out of the capital. so i walked across the statutory hall and just get into the chamber and all of a sudden, two of my security guys grabbed me, one on each side, and kind of scooped me through the hallways and down the stairways and in a tunnel and across over to the rayburn building. the next thing i know, i'm at andback of an suv suburban hurtling across the back streets of washington. i said, what is waiting on? they said, there's a fourth plane in the air. and there was, but it wasn't the plane of pennsylvania, it was a cia plane going up and down the mall. people thought it was a fourth plane and it was going into the capital. just get out.le, go run. get away. people in the white house and the old executive office, because the smoke was coming from down along the state department, that area, said, get out of here and go to the north, run to the north, get away. it was just kind of panic. i ended up out at andrews air force base. i got a hold of the vice president. he said, we have all of the planes down except three are coming across the atlantic that don't have transponders on. there's a flight coming from to washington, d.c., coming across canada right now that does not have its transponder on. if we can't get these planes down, we're going up to shoot them down and we don't want to do that. all of this drama was going on. they said, i'm going to put you in an undisclosed location for the day. the next thing i know, i'm on helicopter flight across the --th part of d.c., cross and there is no traffic moving. nothing on the bridge. everything is kind of dead. i fly over the reagan international airport. the planes are just stacked up on the tarmac, but nothing is moving. there is not enough gates to take care of all of the planes. likenever seen anything that before my life. i look on the other side and the helicopters were going across from the airport. there is the pentagon. this blue/black smoke is belting out of the pentagon. dark orange flame underneath pushing it up. the northernss suburbs of virginia. this is a beautiful, crisp, september morning. it was just that blue black haze as far as you can see. ,'m thinking, i taught history taught about the burning of 1814 and the war of 1812. here i am, speaker of the house, and someone is did the same thing now. how is this going to change history? what was going to happen? i ended up and all of the leadership ended up in "not day.osed location" for the we watched tv. we watched cnn, c-span, just like everybody else did, to find out what was going on and what happened. we did not have a real intelligence source. i talked to the vice president probably two or three times that day. the final conversation was, i said, -- they said, we're going to have the leadership come back the capital as 6:30 and the president is coming in at six: -- 6:00. we're probably in three or four helicopters. we come out of this undisclosed location and laid on the north lot of the capital. president pro was tem of the senate. i was the speaker. daschle and i were each going to mics.ime to the . it was going to be outside on the senate steps. we walk over to the senate steps and the rest of the 250 members of congress, house numbers, senate members, democrats, republicans on the stairs behind us. i walk around to the sticks and daschle gives his 20 seconds and i say, look, we have a lot of work to do. we will be back to work tomorrow and try to solve these problems. in this country will stand shoulder to shoulder. as i turned around after that, summative broke out into "god bless america" and chills went down my spine when that happened. i thought, this country will be ok. we will get it done. years, i wasfive speaker and every time i would stand a lookout that window, i would think of watching that smoke, cross the mall. one of the great heroes we have in our military, the army and navy and marines and air force and coast guard and the people -- the firemen, the people who went up the towers and the police that tried to save lives. really, great americans who wear the uniforms. the people who don't worry uniforms are also heroes. i would to the celebration of flight 93 last september. given there and talking to those families, those people, 10 or nine or eight or seven, we don't know how many, but took that with just a thing of scalding water from the coffee maker and a couple of utensils for breakfast. basically, to down four of these terrorists who are armed in some way come into control of the plane. they were on the telephone and they were talking back to their and theys and offices knew what was going on in washington and knew what was going on in new york, and they knew what their fate was. and those people stood up and made a difference. and we know today because of the hearings, that plane was probably headed -- when i was trying to make a decision what to do -- headed for the capital of the united states, probably in my front window. i could not lookout that window for the next five years without thinking of those people who really made a difference, the real heroes. they may be sitting across from me in an airplane or across the room in a restaurant, but when the times come, people stand up and do the right things. i think that is one of the real strengths of our country. that is my experience and a will never forget those people. they're in my mind all the time. >> i'm afraid that is all the time we have. i would like to thank mike smith and the washington center. please thank speaker dennis hastert. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> in the british house of commons, the defense beholds a hearing on u.k. response to combating isis in iraq and syria. that is live at 9:30 am eastern on c-span 2. >> c-span's 2015 student cam competition is underway. this nation what competition for middle and high school students will award 150 prices totaling $100,000. create a five to seven minute documentary on the topic "the three branches and you." include c-span programming, show varying points of view, and must be summative by jennifer 20th, 1215. january 20, 2015. "washington-span, journal" is next. at 1:00 p.m., scott blackmun. at 3:00 p.m., a look at how the money in college athletics is spent. at 7:00 p.m., a massachusetts governor's debate. a discussion on gun control the selection cycle. our guest is chelsea parsons. governorformer utah and bush administration for secretary michael leavitt. he will talk about the administration's response to ebola. and how federal agencies work with state ♪ good morning, everyone. with just two weeks to go before election day, the washington post is predicting a 93% chance republicans take control of the senate. the states that are likely to flip our alaska, arkansas, colorado, and louisiana. begin with campaign 2014. do you plan to vote? republicans, (202) 585-3881. republic -- democrats, (202
a question about is this ebola arus the proof we need national one payer health care system? we just saw what happened in texas with this capitalistic health care system. us it's going to cost millions and millions to clean that mess up. andt: regarding ebola hospitals not being ready, you had a guest on 8-9 years ago. i forget the author's name. she wrote a book called "pandemic." -- how areto our hospitals were unprepared. we had a shortage of doctors and nurses. all.ook said it we were not ready then and we are not ready now. you should have her back on again. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. or send us ail us tweet. the c-span conversation. like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. an article today in the national journal. charlie cook reporting on how kansas and georgia could change the equation in the u.s. senate with computer models that show republicans with a big advantage in georgia, except in the senate race which is looking like a tossup between david purdue and michelle nunn. c-span covered a recent debate in georgia in the governor's race where the incumbent debated jason carter. and independent candidate andrew hunt. this race is listed as leans republican. senator jason carter claims he will put education first. but don't it against the largest increase in education funding in seven years. against. >> over the last five years, you have seen the worst contraction of public education in the history of our state. you have 9000 fewer teachers and 45,000 people leaving technical schools. this year, there will be fewer. i worry that we will reap what we sow from that destruction of our education system. we'll have a separate budget for education. we will protect it. not just in good times, but all the times. cut billions in waste and spending and voted against obamacare. liberals won't like it when i empower local law enforcement to help the poor -- deport illegal aliens, but it must be done. the federal government has failed to secure our borders. aliens are costing us billions of dollars every year. my concern is you. >> false, negative ads. jason carter is a fiscal conservative who has never voted for a tax increase. he will fund our schools first. he underfunded our schools by billions of dollars. today, we have 9000 fewer teachers, 80,000 fewer recipients and 45,000 fewer technical college students. our kids are paying the price. >> the 2014 atlanta press club loudermilk young debate series brought to you live from georgia public broadcasting. the race for governor. >> good evening, i am brenda wood. we would like to welcome you and our live studio audience to the atlanta press club loudermilk young debate series, originating from the studios of georgia public broadcasting in atlanta. this is the debate between the candidates for georgia's governor. let's meet the candidates. they are in alphabetical order, jason carter, who has represented the 42nd senate district in the georgia state legislature since 2010. incumbent nathan deal has been the governor since 2011 and andrew hunt is the founder and former ceo of a nano technology company. let's meet our analysts. jim galloway writes "political insider," a political column for the "atlanta-journal constitution." christopher king is a reporter with cbs 46 in atlanta. sandra parrish is a reporter covering political and legislative news. this debate will consist of three rounds and for more information on the rules, please visit atlantapressclub.org. let's get started. in the first round, each panelist will pose a question to one candidate. >> mr. deal, with marie university and the cdc putting georgia in the spotlight and the outbreak of ebola, you signed an executive order for an ebola response team. tell others what it will intel and does georgia have a network in place to handle ebola outbreak. >> i did issue an executive order and we will be having the first meeting, an ebola response team and it will be old public and private individuals -- both public and private individuals including emory university. it might be associated with responding and identifying someone who is potentially infected with the virus. i believe we have the resources available and if we need additional, we will try to make sure those are available. we take this seriously. it is something we want to be prepared for. we do not have control over travel restrictions and we have identified the counties where residents from the three primary countries are located and we are making preparations to identify people such as students who may be going home to their home countries and we believe we will be prepared. >> christopher king, your turn. >> mr. hunt, you said you do not want to increase the minimum wage. you want to establish a plan for the state to reimburse on every higher paid more than $11 per hour, will it cost more money and why not just raise the minimum wage? >> you need to have a system of freedom and that is what we need to have. a free enterprise system where the way that people do business is regulated and directed toward the way maximum productivity. we needed to have more jobs to bring people out of poverty. we have one of the highest poverty levels in the nation. we need higher-paying jobs. too many people are heading to part-time jobs. with had a decrease of $1500 and at the last four years, the -- we have had a decrease of $1500 in the last four years in middle-class families. we will go for one of the highest unemployment states in the nation. we have to stop at this. we have to correct and we need a strong plan. mine is a strong and aggressive plan. >> jim galloway, you may ask jason carter. >> mr. carter, when you first arrived in the senate each championed an eligibility cap for the hope scholarship. j he wearing you told a magazine you were backing away and an income tax was too blunt an instrument. my question simply, should any kind of means testing be applied to the hope scholarship and if so, how would it work? >> thank you for your question. before we began, i want to take one moment and say added by the cool has ever worked on a campaign knows how quickly it becomes a family. i recognize that the deal campaign suffered a loss and want to take a moment to acknowledge matt burgess and send condolences to his family and my prayers are with both his family and governor deal's team. with respect to the hope scholarship, i have fought every day against the governor and the cuts were deep and they impacted the middle class and there are 80,000 less recipients. i believe those cuts were wrong. i believe we must make sure we maximize the number of students who were able to afford college and that is how we get the kind of economy we want and that kind of people that are prosperous in moving forward. >> it concludes the first round. the candidates will ask one question to each of their opponents. each will have 30 seconds to ask a question and 60 seconds to respond and 30 seconds for a rebuttal. we begin with andrew hunt and your question of four jason carter. >> i get to choose? >> you get to ask a question of jason carter. i have been told, you do get to choose. [laughter] >> mr. deal, sadly, a bottom 10 list. we have the highest unemployment rate in the highest poverty and poor education, expensive health care, night highest income tax you promised to cut. high incarceration rates, $1500 decrease in of the income, terrible atlanta traffic. you promised limited government. you beautifully glossed over this, but can you acknowledging these facts? >> i reject your facts. family income, household income has increased in the state every year since i have been governor. we have been in the top 10 states in terms of job creation. last year, we were number six in terms of total new jobs. we are seeing our state to grow and we have grown and population of a about 180,000 people. we have gone to the eighth largest state and we have been recognized for the first time in our history as the best state in the nation in which to do business. we are coming out of this great recession and we have team revenues grow. -- seen revenues grow. they have grown every year under my administration and we believe we set the course in the right direction. we have emphasized education and made reforms both at k-12 and technical levels and colleges and universities. we believe we have set a pattern. >> mr. hunt, your rebuttal? >> that was very, very smooth at how you would expect a lawyer to answer. we need to take georgia out of bad policies and build them back up again. we needed to end the reign of career politicians because this is what we get. we get the smooth over. we need to and we have to make a change this year. we need to do it. you can do it. hunt for hunt on the ballot. >> you have to have a question for jason carter. >> well, ok. mr. carter, once again, i will come to the education policy and back to the realm where we have the issue where you want to bring back our employment and state through education. it takes many years for those people to graduate and a changeup that teachers and quality teachers. i like some of your things but it will not get us back to the job creation, we are the highest unemployment. we have to turn this around. >> thank you, dr. hunt. i believe to build a foundation of war and economy and vibrant job creation system we have to begin with education and it allows us to have prosperous people and our state has every ingredient in these to be an absolute powerhouse. now the educational institutions and global access and we are going to have the biggest report on the east coast. with all of those dynamics and people, not just in atlanta but rural georgia and food -- and the route of the agricultural economy, we have the ingredients to be a powerhouse. we are dead last in unemployment and how fast the recovery from the recession. i believe if we invest in our people and create jobs through small businesses, innovative and dynamic entrepreneurs and ensuring we can build durable jobs including an agricultural economy, we would drive this date forward. >> 30 seconds for your rebuttal. >> i heard you address the state of georgia and how we need to turn things around. you did not point out in any way how you will create jobs through better education in the near term. i would like to see this plan put out that is so important that we must, must turn this around and get rid of the poverty cycle. education is one of the ways to do it, i agree. >> mr. deal, you may ask your question. >> dr. hunt, libertarians are fears opponents of government spending. in our last debate, you indicated you would expand medicare under obamacare. i understand you took a $37 million in private-sector grants funded by the taxpayers of this country to make sure your business did not go into bankruptcy. how do you reconcile those positions with your party's positions? >> we need to clarify and make sure everybody understands. first of all, the georgians paid into the federal system and we are not getting the money back. one of the reasons we are hurting and so many ways. do i agree with obamacare? no. do i want state rights? yes. we need to get that to that. but as a republic, each state has the programs themselves. until we do that, we have to get our tax dollars back and bring them back into the system. these grants my company receives are the same away. competitive grants, no lobbying, under scientific merit and review and are considered honor badges. my company received many honors badges of high technological capability and i have 50 patents. and have worked with antimicrobials. >> you know, dr. hunt wants to expand medicaid and an entitlement program. they are killing our country. you are wrong, we are not -- we are borrowing that money. i believe we have to be responsible by the way we spend taxpayers dollars and i see you have benefited from taxpayer-funded grants and i understand your position on that, but it does not seem to reconcile itself with being a libertarian. >> senator carter, you have never had a leadership position in the legislature or leadership position in private business. you of never passed a bill, never offered an amendment. why should georgians vote for you with this absolute lack of leadership experience? >> governor, you and i both know what you said is not true. there are 21 bills that have my name on it that you signed into law. an attack on my leadership is frankly an attempt to pass of the buck. the bottom line of what we need in this state is a governor who will stand up and say, i take responsibility for the middle class. for the fact that $1400 has been taken out of the average person's pocket. it is a number that is real. the facts will show out. the middle class is falling behind and our education system has been undermined. we have a 9000 fewer teachers. and a vision for the future is the most important thing we can provide and this state has languished enough. >> your rebuttal? >> senator carter has been in the legislature as long as i've been governor. his colleagues who have known him back have never given him a position and leadership -- best have never given him a position leadership. he has never been an author of a bill that has passed. he criticizes budget he voted for. he has never offered an amendment to anything that funds the date. >> we are out of time. >> dr. hunt, you are a scientist and you have heard the governor's report of appointing a task force on ebola. what are your thoughts? >> that is a very good one. the governor actually quoted that water kills ebola. we cannot have our leaders making such statements and then not retracting them. i never saw a public retraction. that is bad. i have many years of working in antimicrobials and i find it very bad we have a leadership that will go in that way. he is assigning a task team but does not the capability or knowledge to know which people have the right ways of doing it. i can be peer on peer with the people addressing these issues and we will put out the right safety measures for our state to be protected. >> mr. carter, care to rebut? >> i think he has put it out well. what we can do in respect to handling the ebola crisis is making sure our health care system and leaders have credibility. i've lived in africa in times of outbreak and is important that our top leadership is communicating effectively and our top leadership expert on appropriate information and i believe it was inappropriate last week for the governor to say water kills ebola. governor deal, we asked supporters on facebook what they would like to ask you. but this question comes from my friend, robert, who is here. here it is. it is football season. we would not stand for it if our football team was getting beaten by tennessee, florida, mississippi, louisiana, south carolina, and the entire rest of the country. being dead last with respect to unemployment -- >> and you are out of time. please get your question. >> why shouldn't it cost you yours? >> unemployment numbers are outliers. the critical area is how many jobs are being created. we have created more jobs than all of the states you named. last year, we were sixth in the nation. we are on the right track. what you are saying is simply quoted statistics. the bureau of labour statistics is now saying that if are finally going to and just their model. -- adjust their model. the only problem is they do not adjust it until they do in audit in february. i am confident they will come back and say our unemployment rate was not the figure as they quoted. it does not reconcile it at major economists are saying it does not make common sense. >> your rebuttal? >> i do not believe it is about statistics but the governor cannot blame the statisticians for the fact that the middle class is hurting. for the fact there are 380,000 georgians are being left behind. we cannot wait until february to generate jobs to bring our state back to where it should be. we have every ingredient we need to be a powerhouse and it is governor has led us to the bottom in so many ways. it is inappropriate and i know with a true vision that supports the middle class, we can move our state forward. >> we will make one exception and i will give nathan deal an opportunity for a rebuttal on the ebola question and comment that was made. >> we have a competent individual, dr. brian fitzgerald, head of public health. she admitted she gave me misinformation. she has put together a comprehensive effort to fight ebola and she is talking with hospitals and making sure that first responders know exactly what they are working with. i believe i've shot responsible -- shown responsible leadership to bring all of the public to make sure our state is protected. >> that is enough. we must move on. this is the debate between the candidates for georgia governor. we will go to our third and final round. in this round, i will ask a question submitted by the public and turn to our panelists for questions to follow. we will continue this cycle until we run out of time. i will ask all of the candidates if you would take a moment to answer the question. we will give you 60 seconds to answer each. i begin with mr. hunt and we can go down the line. a question for each of you. if elected, will you fight for marriage equality and medical cannabis or will you continue to support the status quo? mr. hunt? >> i will be a strong proponent of medical cannabis. it can cure so many things. it is a natural remedy and has fewer side effects than the expensive drugs we are putting people on the are so addictive. this a less addictive, better cure for many areas including our veterans who are suffering from ptsd and we need to take care of our veterans dearly. on the same-sex marriage area, this is an area that will be determined by the courts and is happening right now. i would not want to waste tax money on laws. each organization should decide who they believe is worthy of being married or not. that is how it was in the founding of our company. smaller government, less rules and regulations and that way we maximize our freedoms that we should have. >> mr. deal? >> in 2004 when the people voted for a constitutional amendment that said marriage was between a man and a woman, i took an old of office to support and uphold the constitution and laws of the state and that is what i intend to do. in regards to medical cannabis, i entered an executive order which has put us far ahead of many other states. we are cooperating through our department with a private company that is doing clinical trials and we are going to be approved by the food and drug administration for georgia through our university to conduct clinical trials. i have sympathy for these families and individuals who are seeing children suffering from seizures and i will work with the general assembly as i have done to make sure we have a good, solid answer. i am not going to be in a position off seeing georgia be, -- become like colorado. >> i have spent time with the parents of children, who suffer from seizure disorders. last year when we voted in the senate to allow those law-abiding citizens and folks who care so much about their children to have access to that cannabis oil treatment, i was proud. i was disappointed that the gridlock prevented it from taking place and would like to see better leadership at the time. i do support that and will 30 to to do so and would gladly signed legislation. with respect to marriage, i believe in religious liberty and personal freedom and i do not believe that anyone should tell a church or religious organization who can be married, but i do believe the government when it comes to doling out right should do it equally. i take an oath to the constitution and would certainly continue to apollo to the the constitution as long as it remains valid under the law. >> during the report and primary, you agree to make your recent income tax available but you have yet to do so. do you still intend to do so and when? i believe mr. carter has made the same commitment and is not made his income tax available. >> i intend to make my tax returns available like i've done previously. let me just say, i've seen senator carter's ad about my business was done this a typical illustration of how some liberals look at private enterprise. we work with the business for over 2 decades, meeting weekly payroll. i do not agree with the proposition that the government made our business successful. a national company wanted to buy our business and we agreed to sell. unlike the liberal context where georgia built businesses from scratch, i want to tell you, is not the government that made us successful but those of us who worked to make our companies successful. >> mr. carter, i will give you a chance for rebuttal. >> this the business governor deal was using to make better. it is a practice. the taxpayers have been on the hook. there are $3 million coming out of our pockets to deal with this governor's coverup of prior issues. i'll tell you, when i think about these facts we see, i think we deserved more of a response than liberal name-calling. >> i am going to let you respond. yes. >> with regard to any taxes that may be owed by the copy that about our company, i have led a neutral judge make the call and we will collect every cent. the allegations about ethics charges is something senator carter has related to. the ethics know commission heard the charges against me and dismissed them as being of no merit whatsoever just as the charging against him has been dismissed as well. >> sandra parrish, your question. >> two years ago, georgia ranked 50th in an ethics report. >> we have not only reformed the ethics rules, especially tightening them down, it is greatly improved our status in terms of ratings. we have in my administration put almost $250,000 into the ethics commission to update their computer system and give them the authority the promulgate rules. it should not take anybody 2 1/2 years to determine a case against a candidate as no valid merit whatsoever as was the case with me. i want to make sure that we have reforms and that is why i have recommended we make reforms fear to include all three branches of government making equal appointments. the debate about the misfunctioning of that commission has been primarily the inability of staff to coordinate their activities. if we have independent members who do not vote on charges that come against individuals from the government that has appointed them, we will remove any doubt. >> another question from the public. this is from ashley mcdonald. this for all of you. in regards to the affordable health care act, how do you plan to help middle-class families who make too much money to qualify for assistance, yet who struggle trying to pay for health care? mr. carter? >> right now the federal government has $36 billion of our money and the governor has fought to keep that money. that does not make sense for our people and for the 600,000 georgians who would have health care it not for this governor's decision. there are 35,000 jobs that would come in our health care sector if we took the federal dollars that are ours. that is what looking for solutions looks like. the governor has played washington politics repeatedly on this issue and decided to bring his experience in congress here and say the most important thing is partisanship. i believe we have to solve problems. our rural hospitals are in crisis. there are five that have closed. there are 16 more on the verge of bankruptcy. we must charge forward on this issue and as governor, i will do it, ensuring georgia gets its fair share. >> first of all, i think you should know the fact that georgia taxpayers support the current medicaid program at both the state and federal level, and if we expand it, it would cost $2.5 billion over the next 10 years. i simply do not think we can afford to do that. it is not money where paid in post. most of it is money the federal government does not have. we have paid some $351 million and is much it to come into compliance with the affordable care act. that is $351 million we could put into things like education. i think we have to be responsible with taxpayer's money and make sure we do what idea with an executive order in regards to rural hospitals, allowing them to cut back to the services they can provide. >> mr. hunt? >> we have a major health care crisis where most people cannot afford to get quality services. the problem is the rules and regulations there. we need tort reform. we must get down the legal costs that is costing our providers so much, and neither of the attorneys running against me will bring that. i will make sure we get toward reform and reduced 20% of our medical costs through this one avenue. we must have a free enterprise system where people are not forced to buy insurance but, can go into direct relationships with doctors through medical co-ops that have been proven other states to reduce the cost. that is what we need. free enterprise-based solutions, less regulation, and tighten down on the lawyers that are in your insurance policy. every time you pay your health insurance, you are paying a lawyer. >> i skipped christopher king, so we will pick up. >> each of the candidates have mentioned and talked about a little bit before, job employment, and this question is for all of the candidates. as you mentioned, georgia ranks sixth in the nation for job growth. it still has the highest unemployment rate and the country. the same state labor department puts the jobless rate at 7.9%. it is much higher than the national average. what would you do to reduce unemployment and create not just low-paying jobs, but well-paying jobs? mr. hunt? \ >> i would definitely and both my job powerhouse program and we can drive within my term, drive unemployment less than 5% and that is what we need. the better job environment, the the better the pay. it would be done in such a way that only full-time jobs paying $11 an hour or more are rewarded. it is for every town, every city. we have two of the highest poverty cities and the country. you can make a choice on what it want. do you want to give in to this, or do you want a system that will address jobs quickly, a free-enterprise ace system where the government does not choose winners or losers. you get to buy who you get your services from, and we will have great jobs. >> jim galloway? >> this question is for all three gentlemen. in 2003, the legislature passed a measure for public damages.ies to pursue should the state of georgia take the next step and criminalize this activity, mr. hunt? >> that is an excellent question and what you have to look at is maybe we are doing too many regulations. maybe you should allow a little bit of money to come to these impoverished players that are suffering so much. let's rethink the whole thing and make that would have done liberty and opportunity for people. let's have it so they make it so that can make a reasonable amount of money. we need to clean up our sports, but we need to have every system that is fair to the player as well as to the college. the colleges are getting all of the money and everything else. the donors are putting a lot of money into the football program and i will like to see the donors put it in education. that is where we need to put our money, and then have it so the players can get some money and wealth a much better system. >> first of all, maybe we should see more enforcement all the law that we have. i think more importantly than anything is we need to see some fairness in the ncaa, we need to see players being treated fairly for the same kinds of accusations. the state of georgia is trying to play by the rules, but we are seeing other stadiums across the country playing individuals who may be have done at the very same thing that one of our players is alleged to do. it is a serious problem and requires everybody be treated fairly and equitably, including the players and families and schools. this is certainly something i thing left to be cautious about legislating on. this has always been within the promise of the private sector, those who regulate athletic activities in our colleges and universities, but i do believe with a enough public pressure we can change their attitude to make sure that our people are being treated with fairness. >> mr. carter? >> i think you have a lot of georgia fans up here. the short answer is, yes. i think the folks out here preying on these athletes and making money off them should be punished. i will to you what i think about would we look and consider what is happening at the university of georgia. we have undermined our public institutions of higher education that it is on believable. the cost of college in this day is rising faster than any state but one. is another way that georgia has reached the bottom. we have to sure we are making education our first priority. i believe if we do that, we can control the cost of college and expand the hope scholarship to ensure middle-class families are able to maximize their access tp college, and right now, when the look at the university of georgia and how excited we are about our football team, we want to be excited about higher education and their ability to afford. >> sandra parrish? >> the mayor of houston asked pastors to turn over sermons in term of a case. do you support antidiscrimination laws over the right to free of speech? >> i believe freedom of speech is important and the government cannot legislate within that spectrum. i believe there are certain types of hate crimes their -- that rise to the level of being more than speech. as a general matter, no, i will not support legislation that would restrict people's rights to freedom of speech. i believe we can strike appropriate balance. i think we have to allow people to move forward and be free to speak as they wish. >> would you want to hear response from the other candidates? >> sure. >> i think that is one thing that senator carter and i can agree on. you have to be careful when you intruding into free speech rights. you never know what the unintended consequences might be. but it is not the province of government to regulate and contain that, except when you cry fire in a crowded theater. those extreme situations that jeopardize the health and safety of individuals and has generally been the guidelines in which we have allowed statutory intervention to occur. i believe that is a pretty good example of where we need to draw the line. we do not need to react to every popular opinion that comes along. >> mr. hunt? >> we have had two excellent answers so far. but what i will address is that i am a strong constitutionalist, the way it was written and not the way the living document they reinterpret over the year. i am very strong on the first amendment, but all of the amendments. we are having our liberties and rights taken from us. every law passed is taking a more freedoms away from us. oo many lawmakers. if i am governor, what i will like to see, if you pass a law, i want to see where you have to scratch three or four off the book. yes, we do not want to hurt other people's desire that is the edge of liberty when you inflict harm on others. >> thank you. christopher king, your question. >> it is on k-12 education. the state budget is about $8 billion dollars on k-12 education. according to the budget institute, the state would need another $700 million to fund schools. would you increase funding for the schools and by how much? >> first of all, let me point out that the quality basic education formula that has been in place since 1985 has never been fully funded. what i have done is to appropriate a greater percentage of general state revenue for k-12 education than any governor since carl sanders in the 1960's. this year, the largest single appropriation as our economy was rebounding was in this year's budget. my colleague here, senator carter, saw fit to vote against that. i have indicated i would put in place individuals who will come together and study our funding as well as our delivery mechanism. it is time we make it more appropriately allocated to the needs of today's education system. we have are ready brought on board one of the best local superintendents and he is working in the office of planning and budget. we will continue that. >> mr. carter? >> governor deal has to look back to the 1960's to justify his educational policy. we need to fund our education for this century. what you have seen and our state is though worse underfunding and worse contraction in the history of our state. teachers are suffering as students are suffering and our state's economy, the very foundation, is crumbling. that is how we end up with the skills gaps we have now. there are 9000 fewer schoolteachers now than when the governor took over. 2/3 of our school districts have had to cut instructional days. we are not doing the job at the state level we need to. not only that, but when the governor's budgets have passed because of its cuts, 91 school districts have raised their property taxes just we are getting less education and more taxes and no one wants that. i have a plan to change the way we do the educational budget. >> mr. deal, you have 30 seconds to rebut. you have 30. >> if you support public education, you should've voted for the largest increase in k-12 funding in seven years. the statistics you cite are inaccurate. i am not reaching back to the 1960's. i am saying a portion of state revenue, with have felt 4 four highest the years since any governor some 50 years ago. you say you support education but your votes a do not support that. you are in a distinct minority in voting against. every democrat in the house voted for it. 2/3 of your colleagues voted for this budget. >> mr. carter, your rebut? >> governor deal, you know and i know that my record is clear on public education funding. you have underfunded it this year by $750 million and i could not vote that. the process is broken and i am the only candidate who has a plan to fix it. you can throw statistics out over and over again, but walk into your local schools, walk to the schools that have 26 kids in their kindergarten class and ask a teacher. no one and this state believes we are properly funding education. >> mr. hunt? >> our education system is completely broken. the u.s. spends more per student on education than any other nation in the world, yet we rank 25th. we need to look at how these better countries are doing it less expensively than us. we do not have to increase the budget. we have to do better. we need school choice. we need educatational savings accounts where the money follows of the child. take the money and let the parents choose what is best for the education of the child. let's have whatever variety of school types and blended schools, stem schools, vocational schools. a range of different education. bring it into early childhood and support hope through the end. if there is one way to end the cycle of poverty, it is education. we are not taking it seriously. education. some people say they want a more charts schools in this year's budget family put a small increase versus hundreds of millions for other. >> a question from the public again, and it is picking up on a question previously asked by our panelist mr. king on employment. this is directed specifically to mr. deal from mrs. haywood. governor nathan deal, in the previous debate i was taken aback by your comments, people who work are better than people who do not work, because there are so many in our state still looking for jobs. as a student, i worry about getting a job after graduation. while your ads parade georgia as being the number one state to do business, it is hard to ignore georgia leads the nation in unemployment. it is safe to say you inherited a failing economy, but so did the president and 49 other governors. why is georgia under your leadership lagging behind the rest of the nation in its rate of unemployment? >> first of all, unemployment rates are only good for political advertising as a general rule. economists and businesses do not pay attention to them. this a look at job growth. right there in athens, georgia, we have a great example of our economic development. caterpillar brought a plant and they came to the state of georgia and they are creating hundreds of jobs. that has been our focus. with a eliminated the marriage tax on couples. we have focused on job creation. we eliminated the sales tax on energy so manufacturers could grow, and we have seen that the growth from the caterpillar plant to baxter, making a $1 billion investment capital so it would be the largest single investment in this state's history since kia came. we are making substantial strides. job creation is what is important for those in college. >> that question was directed specifically to you, so will pick up with our panel. >> i do not want to seem like i am beating up mr. deal. i would like to hit the other candidates on this. today for the first time and state history, voters cast ballots on a sunday. many will do so next sunday. mr. deal, you said you will be open to legislation that would close down sunday voting. could you please explain your position. >> i think the voting policies of our state should be uniform. you should not have one county having a pattern that is different from other counties. i think that is what the generals assembly will look at. if all counties were allowed to have sunday voting, that is fine with me. as my wife says, republicans can vote on sunday too as long as they go to church first. i think all of us want to see as many people as possible who are registered and qualified to turn out and vote. i think we should do whatever is important to turn out the voters. i would encourage everyone who is watching to either early vote or vote on november 4. >> we have to open of voting as much as we can. we are at historically low rates of voting. the majority of people are dissatisfied with the 2 major parties for. you have a choice. do not stay at home because you're acquiescing that government is ok. we want to make it easy for people to register, but we want valid voters and we want to notice a trail we can look at and see that your vote counted a can be recounted if it has to be. our current machines cannot provide that record. we need to have a printed, written record of every person's vote so we can go back and verify or some of the current electronic verifications like we have for our monetary transactions. these do not exist with our electronic voting machines, and it is a shame we do not have such an honorable system. >> jason carter? >> i am glad that governor deal has changed his position on the fairness of sunday voting. right now, any county was to vote on sunday is allowed to do so. it is fantastic. it helps people get engaged and helps working people get to the polls because they do not have to take time off jobs. i've always been in favor of expanding the right to vote and ensuring we have a fair system. that both counts every vote and registers every voter. and i think of making it as convenient as possible helps us all. >> we have time for one more question from our panelists. it is either directed to one candidate for 60 seconds or all of the candidates who each will get 30 seconds. sandra, you get the last question. >> into directed to mr. deal. when the legislature passed legislation allowing per meters to carry guns to church. do you support of allowing guns in churches on sundays as long as the churches opt in? >> we are going to give everyone 30 seconds to reply, and we will start with you, mr. deal, and go to jason carter and mr. hunt. >> i believe the beauty of the bill that passed was we gave churches the choice. that is always a better option rather than the stated dictating to them, and i trust congregations and the leaders of the churches to make those kind of judgment calls. i think we have given them that flexibility, and they will exercise it appropriately. >> mr. carter? >> i agree with the governor deal it is important to give local communities and congregations a choice in this matter. i fought very hard in respect to this bill and brought people together to ensure the choice that the churches were given was a real one. that is the kind of leadership i provide, bringing people together on difficult issues. >> mr. hunt? >> i am a strong constitutionalist, so i support gun rights, and i also support the right of private land owners whether individual or organizations. each entity should be able to determine what is allowed on their property or not. government should not be saying you should allow it, it is your property, you get to decide. government should not say you cannot do this unless it is hurting other people. that is liberty. >> that is all the time we have for questions. the candidates will have 60 seconds for a closing statement. jason carter makes the first closing statement. >> thank you so much for spending your time and watching this debate tonight. i believe this state has everything it needs to be an absolute powerhouse. if we put our minds to it in this state and educate our people and invest and them and open up the doors to our colleges to give people the skills they need for the future, and if we invest and pay attention to the middle class and to the small businesses of this state, we will have the ability to have a dynamic, growing, forward-looking economy that innovates and expands for the future. right now we are not getting that economy. people are getting left behind in our education system. but we can succeed. i ask for your vote. i ask for your vote for the future of this state, and i would be honored to serve as your governor. >> thank you for listening today and i am honored to have served as your governor for these last 4 years and i ask for your votes i can do so for another 4 years. we have put in place many reforms that are putting our state forward. and we are going to continue to see that grow. we are putting money into our k-12 system, into technical colleges and colleges and universities, and we did so this era because our policies were working and our revenue was growing. we have also made reforms in our criminal justice system, something will not had a chance to talk about tonight is. it is revolutionary. we already lead the country. we have been recognized as such. we are saving millions of dollars and saving lives. we have seen our african-american population in our prison system and drop by 20% and we will break the cycle of crime by educating those who have no skill so when they get out, that will not commit crimes again. >> mr. hunt? >> david pennington and many that will bringsed me because e cost-effective solutions and freedom of fairness for all of us. it is a nine day choice here. i am very different. i'm a small different man, a phd in engineering. i want to have about 50 patents, and i want to put that to work for you. i want to work for you, the people, bring government back to be for the people. that way we can have a better way forward. i have 1% or less than the money they do. you will see lots of ads by them. we have the views of who they have been supported by, the special interest groups that pay for the tens of millions of ads. if you want to support me, talk to other people. if you just vote for me, that's great. i'm asking for more. i'm asking you to get out and tell other people to hunt for hunt on the ballots. >> thank you. and thanks to the candidates and our panel of journalists. we would also like to thank the atlanta press club for arranging this debate. onember the election is tuesday, november 4. early voting has already begun. we urge you to cast your ballot, and make sure your vote is carolyn -- counted. the series is made possible by a donation. i'm brenda wood, thank you for joining us. have a good evening. live now to the national press club in washington d.c., hosting a discussion on college athletics with scott blackmun. introductions underway by the and pcs -- npc president. >> crystal contact him a athletic director at texas christian university. shan zynga are, guest of our speaker. mark camera, washington bureau chief, chairman of the npc broadcasting, and a former president of the national press club. of 99.1 fm. ursula larsen, capital standard magazine. and the health and wellness reporter for u.s. news & world report. [applause] a year ago, scott blackmun received a four-year contract extension as ceo of the u.s. olympic committee, which he headed since 2010. this degree of stability is rare for the labor committee. his two predecessors lasted less than a year, and feel a bit committee has had seven ceos in the last 14 years. when blackmun took the reins, the committee had been embarrassed by chicago's failure to land the 2016 olympic games. in fact, chicago finished dead last among the competitors. the organization was criticized by not knowing how to deal with international olympic committees, and it was hit by layoffs and lowbrow. blackmun is credited with helping restore the financial health of the committee, usoc operates olympic training centers where aspiring competitors train for international optician. unlike what happens in many companies come up -- countries, the usoc is largely dependent on corporate sponsorship. during his tenure, revenue has increased. but there have been a few bumps along the way. was silent in the wake of the arrest of hope solo. they did speak out against the abuse, causing -- calling these charges outstanding. blackmun refrained from any demonstrations or political speech during the winter olympics in sochi. many were upset by what they considered russia's anti-gay laws. today, mr. blackmun will discuss the state of college athletics, and how it impacts the u.s. a libertine. the usoc has a strong interest in college athletics because so many olympians are college athletes. at the london games, 65 american olympians had participated in college athletics. ladies and gentlemen, scott blackmun here to tell us more about this . join me in welcoming him to the national press club. [applause] >> thank you. and thanks to all of you for being here today. it is an honor for us to be here. i know you all signed up to hear bob bowlsby. i would've loved to hear from him today, bob has been a member of the board of directors at usoc for eight years. i know what a great speaker who he is. bob, you are probably watching. i wish you a speedy recovery. the theme today is college athletics. you all know the stakes for the universities and for the athletes. also an incredibly important topic, more important than you probably know for the success of the united states at the olympic games. before i talk about that, i want to start by giving a brief introduction about the usoc, who we are, what we do, how we came to be. we have been around in one form or another since the late 1800s. most of our history, things were relatively confusing. there was outright conflict for a long time between the usoc and the aau. while there was consensus that we didn't want to fund delivery teams with federal dollars, -- our olympic teams with federal dollars, there wasn't a way to bring altogether. that all changed with senator ted stevens, the author of the imager sports act -- and mature sports act. it may surprise you to learn that we are a 501(c) organization. we are not a government organization. we were given complete responsibility for live export to the united states. and shortly thereafter, paralytic sport. sports.ympic we were certifying a national body for each sport. we have 48 national governing bodies, 39 of which are in olympic sports. each of those ngb's is a separate nonprofit organization responsible for their sport from the grassroots level all the way up to elite competition. what that means is we have to work hand in glove with each of those 48 or each of those 39 ngb's.s sport it is not such an easy task. tried to bethe usoc too many things to too many people. we focused our mission in 2004. we used to have a board of directors of 120 five people. we now have 16 people. an executive committee of 25 people, now we have no executive committee at all. importantly, we also focused our mission. our mission was to help olympic and paralympic athletes. how do we help american athletes get medals put around their ne cks? we have a line of sight between every decision we make in the impact on how many americans will win medals. the act gives us exclusive control over trademarks. these cookies are a problem. they didn't ask us if they could put the olympic symbol on the cookies. [laughter] we will have to confiscate those. hatcher, who is a former football player, will the what to do with them. we protect our trademarks. they are extremely valuable. senator stevens saw that before anybody else. he saw it as a way to give american athletes the same opportunities that athletes that we compete with around the world get. we don't have the same budget that other countries have. wordhe word olympic, the paralympic, the rings, are all things you can't use except under journalistic conditions without our consent. it is that consent that we provide to our sponsors and our licensees. and that is what drives our budget. our budget is about to enter million dollars -- $200 million. that really pales in comparison to the amount spent by our colleges and universities. we, the united states of america, when it comes to olympic and paralympic athletes, e only as strong as the collegiate system today. 65% of the u.s. a libertine in london participated in college sports. students in the pac 12 had 88 medalists. we had 88 medals. we ended up with 104 medals in london, so as you can see, it was in a believable contribution to collegiate sports and collegiate athletes. one third of the team and so she this past winter, including 31 medalists, participated in college sports. if there is one primary message for today, it is this. there are countries like china and russia, who spend billions of dollars on their ethnic programs. and our government has chosen not to. we fully support that. we cannot maintain our position at the top of the medal table unless we find a way to preserve a live export programs at colleges and universities -- olympic support programs at colleges and universities. the so-called nonrevenue programs are beginning to disappear. -- men'swe had 59 jim gymnastic programs. today there 16. women's gymnastic programs have dropped from 99 to 62 over the same timeframe. today we have 77 wrestling programs, down from 146 35 years ago. that list goes on. someone said to me no college athletic director has ever been fired for terminating and olympic sport program. our concern, stated very bluntly, is that the inevitable reallocation of resources in college athletics will make it even more difficult for olympic sport programs to survive. the call to action today is urgent. it goes beyond eligibility rules, and focuses on the survival of olympic sport in our country. -- whenabout when jorgensen, she attended the university of wisconsin where she swam and ran for the badgers. she earned her master's degree in accounting. she passed her cpa exam. and went to work for a big accounting firm. way tos well on her using her education as a professional, in something other than sports, like so many of for peers. but she discovered the sport of triathlon. became usa triathlon's rookie of the year in 2010. madeay be a libertine -- the olympic team in 2012. in 2013, she placed first in four triathlon races, something no other female has done. the united states owes much of its olympic success to collegiate institutions, to the coaches i'm a programs, and facilities. to continueect them to support us out of the goodness of their hearts. we have to build partnerships that benefit them in addition to us. coachesto work with the and the donors. we want to work with the conference commissioners like bob. anyone interested in maintaining and strengthening collegiate sports programs to build partnerships that not only programs, butc help build strong athletic departments at institutions that believe in a balanced human being, and the power of sport to enrich lives and enhance achievement. indeed, to make the world better place. it is not just about team usa. id whether we win or lose, know as well as anyone, the role of collegiate programs play as developing us as human beings. i went to dartmouth and long time ago. i played soccer, i grew up in chicago. i was a goalie. there was only one goalie on the team at a time it. i thought i was pretty hot stuff. it was 1974. i was allstate, the coach called me. i hadn't heard of dartmouth. he convinced me to go to dartmouth. about a week before i arrived, he told me he had recruited another goalie, my same age and year from the town next to me. i hadn't heard of, and i frankly wasn't too worried about it. we arrived on campus, and this hada young man who tremendous athletic talent. upwhole identity was wrapped in being a soccer player. when i got to dartmouth, he ended up starting most of the four years, and i didn't. i started one year out of the four. and it had a huge impact on me. i kind of had to reframe what i wanted to do with my life. how i looked at myself. i knew i was never going to be a professional soccer player. aat four years going into situation thinking that is how you are defined, and then having to kind of retool and figure out what you are all about, had a huge impact on me. fast forward i joined the usoc as general counsel in 1999. runt promoted quickly to our sports group. we basically have a sports group and a marketing group. i ran the sports group for eight months, and that got promoted to deputy executive director. and then i got promoted to interim executive director while we did a search. i was strongly encouraged to stay. i did stay. at the end of that search process, they picked somebody else. and for reasons that are probably too long to go into now, i decided not to stay. that experience in college really helped me think through -- what i was going to do. i was a recovering lawyer, i for 20 plus years, but had been out of the practice of law for five years. it is tough to go back. it is tough to find clients again. it ended up being the best thing that could have ever happened to me. i got to go to los angeles and be the chief operating officer of a company called an chief entertainment group. will -- six6% professional soccer teams. i learned so much. my experience in college athletics is not at all unique. there are thousands of young athletes who have life-changing experiences, and you are better people, more successful people because of their participation in college sports. it is not just football players and basketball players. it is not just the gwen jorgensen's of the world who represent our country at the games. that is one of the reasons that americans love the olympic games so much. we love the americans. we love overcoming. we love seeing that american flag when we walk in to our schools and places of work. being american is a really important part of why we get so much support from the american public. the other reason we get so much support is because we are about much more than competition. we are about much more than winning and losing. it is about how we win, and how we lose. it is about being the best that we can be. , inof my greatest mentors the sense that i read what he wrote and watched him speak, was john wood. he defines success as the peace of mind from knowing that you did the very best you could. it's about the joy found in efforts. it is that that makes us different from any other professional sport in the united states. but it is also that which makes us very similar to collegiate athletics. it is based on a value system. ofis based on a balance mind, body, and spirits. it is based on broadening's peoples experiences. it's why this relationship that we have with the ncaa institutions is so important to us. so what can we do to make that relationship better? usoc and ourhe national governing bodies have partnered with the national association of collegiate directors of f x -- athletics. to create the u.s. olympic achievement award. that recognizes colleges and universities whose student athletes and coaches have won olympic medals. the u.s. olympic achievement award was a step in the right direction. we will continue to publicly recognize the importance of our success at the 11 games. but we need to do more. -- the olympic games. but we needed to do more. forwe do endowments olympics board coaches or scholarships. can we use the great olympic brand or the experience of our governing bodies to build revenue-generating properties ith conferences and schools? and we allow colleges and universities to use their olympic identities and success to recruit athletes and coaches, and perhaps to build facilities? can our national governing bodies work with the ncaa to host conference championships and national championships in their sports? usa triathlon is already doing this. who knows, maybe she would have been number one much sooner if we had been able to do that. nbc to promotee the university backgrounds of our lipid teams -- our olympic teams? we believe that the united states needs to host the olympic games again. we haven't hosted the summer games since 1996. what that means is there is a whole generation of americans who haven't seen the olympic games on american soil. we believe that hosting be olympic games can inspire a whole generation of athletes who will attend the collegiate institutions. that doesn't mean we have made a final decision to bid, but we are very seriously considering it. we have four great cities, boston, los angeles, san francisco, and washington. we will make our decision probably by the end of january. maybe earlier than that. met one-on-one with a number of athletic directors from some of the schools that we depend upon the most. we talked about many of the ideas i just mentioned, things that we can do for them, for their schools, and for their programs, for their athletes, for their coaches. we also want to form a working group to look at opportunities that can benefit college sports across the board, and to jump start the discussion, we have a $5 million donor that is prepared to invest in the preservation of a live exports at colleges. olympic sports at colleges. we need to have a conversation about the role we'd aged to play in creating a safe environment for sports. there is no agency, no commission today responsible for the safety and well-being of young athletes. our best estimates suggest that one in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused the time they are 18. sports, it happens in if not more than in society at large. the usoc board of directors unanimously supported the establishment of a new independent entity to create and sustain safe environments for sports. investing $5 million for a pilot program in all of bees collectively -- ngb's collectively. we are trying to raise an additional $15 million to get this organization off the ground. peoplek there are enough and organizations who believe in us, believe what we are trying to achieve here, that we are going to get it done. this entity will have two primary functions -- education and awareness on the one hand, and for olympic sports, investigation. one of the biggest challenges that we have is that some of our ngb's have limited budgets. , we this independent entity will have the ability to provide the ability to provide that resource to them, so that we can do this. program will sport help raise awareness about misconduct, will promote open dialogue, and will provide training and resources. it is a big problem that nobody is addressing on a national level. we will try and fill that vacuum, but it is not cheap, and we would very much like to partner with as many of our college and university partners as we can. sayingclose by simply that i am grateful for the opportunity to be here today, and to tell you a little bit about the u.s. olympic committee , about team usa, and about why college sports really matter to us. the state of college sports in this great nation is in a state of great flux. i, know much more than what direction that is likely to head. but if athletes like when jorgensen arehen going to continue to read the benefits of college athletics, and our country will enjoy it spotted the top of the podium, both on and off the field of play, and in board rooms and availability games, we have to support all of our student athletes and the programs that support them. there are immense challenges facing colleges minister to us. we understand there is not a single college ministry during the country who wants -- administrator in the country that was to shut down analytic sport -- and olympic sport program. we much appreciate the opportunity. [applause] >> you outlined the professional successes you had after not being elected to the ceo position of the usoc in 2001. what drove you to come back to the usoc after you lost that vote? >> i have to go back in time it. i joined the usoc in 1999, it was the fall of 1998 when i realized the thing i liked best was going home and mowing the lawn on friday afternoon. i get home, i would look over my shoulder, and i could see i made the world better place. it was a small piece of the world, but it made me feel really good about the fact i had done something that was tangible and had improved some state of affairs somewhere. as a lawyer, i didn't often feel that way. when i was back practicing law in colorado in 2009, and i got the phone call asking if i would be interested in coming back, it was a dream come true. it was something i honestly never expected. i wasn't going to apply for the job. i had more or less assumed they had moved on from me. they had a lot of turnover. the more i got to see the impact of the 2004 reorganization on the usoc, the more i got to see the tremendous leadership that we get from our board of directors. we have a wonderful group of people. six people who are independent, and have no relationship to olympic sport. generally, three people elected by the national governing bodies, three people elected by active athletes. for the first time in the history of the usoc, coming to the table, trying to do what is in the best interest of the usoc and its athletes, as opposed to acting in the best interest of the constituency it happened to send them. i came back because i believe in the power of sport to make the world a better place. my lawn hadn't gotten any bigger, so i wasn't getting as much enjoyment from that as a used to. >> one more summit personal question before we go into some steps instead of -- substanc tive questions. how is your life changed? >> lots of travel. it seems like a low-level to those of you who are directors of athletics. i'm an mg nester as of a year ago. the good news is, i can bring my wife. the most important change is the time i get to spend it training centers, seeing our young men and women, most of whom don't get the big dollars of professional athletes. they are there because they love competing. they really love are presenting their nation. it is just inspiring to be around them. -- representing their nation. you spoke about the importance of college boards programs. certain college athletes, specifically for ballplayers, generate millions of dollars for their schools. why shouldn't they receive a portion of that revenue? >> this is one it would have been good to have bob here. [laughter] bob knows the answer to that question, i'm not sure that i do. createk our athletes great value, both monetarily and in terms of the inspiration in what they do. we also know that our colleges and universities have jobs that go way yonder athletics -- way beyond athletics. i'm probably being overly noncontroversial here, but it is a couple get a question. the people who should answer that question are the people who were involved in the business of college sport. we need college sport. we need to figure this out in a way that doesn't cause us to lose college sports on the olympic side. but i don't know what the answer is to that question. creately, those athletes a heck of a lot of value. i'm not sure that we have adequately answer the question about why don't we give them all that money, but why haven't we done more for them. >> if there is one thing you could change about the olympics for the twice for century, what would it be? >> that is a great question. i think the ioc's meeting in europe to talk about that question. they are talking about what changes do we want to make is a part of a project they call agenda 2020. if you look at how we select cities for the london games, rightly or wrongly, -- for the olympic games, it is different from the way business would make that decision. it's a multibillion-dollar program, a multibillion dollar value. the selection is made on whatever cities sign up to be host of the olympic games, and then there is a competition in a vote among those cities. it would be great if we could find a way to strategically make that selection in a way that helped build the olympic brand around the world. >> the united states has not hosted an olympics since the 2002 winter olympics in celtics city. what would it -- salt lake city. what would it take for the ioc prove? >> base in our discussions with the ioc, they are very open to coming back to the united states. we have made a sincere effort to become much more active and engaged in the global olympic movement. we have tried to be at the table when decisions get made and contributions have to be made to various projects. i think the time is right for the u.s. to compete to host the 11 games. for us -- the olympic games. we want to make sure there is a compelling reason for the ioc to look at our bed and say that will make the world better. it will make the city that hosts the games better. it is so important that we not spend huge amounts of money that wouldn't otherwise be spent on the olympic games. it is one thing to spend it $10 billion on every structure, if you were going to spend $10 billion on infrastructure because it's in the city's best interest. because they need a new railroad, new streets, things like that. but we can't do is put ourselves in a situation with the citizens of any city are paying to host an event, and paying expenses that wouldn't otherwise be spent on their city anyways. for us, one of the greatest challenges is how do we make it affordable? and we make it a value-added proposition for the citizens of whichever city will host? washingtonare in d.c., and we have a few questions related to washington. what do you think of the d.c. -- 2024 bid? >> i think russ ramsey is doing a great job. i think this is an iconic american city, a city that represents our nation. i think our other three cities are equally as good. [laughter] >> you have touched on this in your remarks to an earlier question. why should d.c. residents want and pay for the 2014 olympics? games are the olympic now,ially important to us as we as a nation seem especially divided. games acrosslympic all religious lines, all political lines, all economic lines. they are about coming together to do something other than focus on your disagreements. it is something that focuses everybody's attention on what we have in common, as opposed to what makes us different. there is healthy competition, but is in the spirit of all of us, every country, every 204 countries that comes to compete, being the very best we can be and moving forward after that competition. i think the great benefit for any city hosting the games is that they can be a part, again come of making the world a better place. be a part of something that is much bigger than just a sport, titian or broadcast event. >> what are we doing to set ourselves apart as olympic hosts, compared to other countries? >> i think it is too early to be able to answer that one. we don't know if we are going to host 2024.d to we don't know who we will be competing against. we are out of phase now where we are just evaluating if this is the right thing for the united states, and if so, who should our bid city partner b. for us, i think one of the things that any city we would is someld offer reliability. access to great technology, access to great infrastructure. i think the united states has historically done a fantastic job of hosting the games. salt lake city, los angeles, , we lasted, -- lake placid have a rich history of doing it well. i think the ioc would look at the united states and feel comfortable that we would be able to do it in a way that would create a great experience for the fans, the athletes, for the guests, for the sponsors. >> the recent article in the atlantic monthly asked what if democracies refused to pay for the olympic games again? this was a response to the lack of enthusiasm in the parts of 2022rn nations to host the winter limits. can you comment on this, and what the ioc can do to encourage bids? >> that's a fantastic question. if a democracy were to spend as spent on the winter living names, i think it would be a problem. we, as a democracy, have a to be fiscally responsible to our citizens. if we can't look at a pll for the olympic games that doesn't have an adverse effect on whatever city is hosting, we will make the decision not to host. when russia spends $51 billion, that sends a message that the games are expensive. but you have to remember, most of that was for bridges and roads and railroads, and venues that didn't exist. in most cases, associated with the united states bid, or a bid from a lot of other nations, those kind of expenditures won't be necessary. i think the ioc is headed in the right direction. by asking to focus everyone's attention to focus on the facts that it cost three or $4 billion, plus whatever you need in the way of infrastructure that is otherwise good for your city. >> some of our questionnaires anticipated the flow of your comments. this is coming along in the order i wanted to make this a good discussion. many countries that the u.s. competes against receive direct and generous support from their governments. the united states does not. should the united states olympic committee received government funding? on, weink as time goes are going to have to increase the amount of resources that we can make available to our athletes if we are going to stay competitive with china, russia, and others. i'm not at all convinced that the best route to that is government support. in 2010, we were raising less than $1 million a year in major gift philanthropy. this year, we should be over $20 million in gross major gift philanthropy. that is the opportunity for us. we have to figure out a way to make americans realize that we are the only developed nation in the world that isn't funded by its government. that,t americans realize we could substantially increase not only the major gift philanthropy, but gifts from to gives who are able $25, to $100. that's the direction we want to go. we are not considering approaching the government to change the rule that has been in place. it is hard to say that we should. in every summer games since 1996. we are ok now. but we need to keep laser focused on how we increased those resources, and we are not for the time being going to the government. >> what do you think of the balance between professional and amature olympics?n the should baseball bn olympics or sport?e an olympic >> the challenge that the ioc faced was that they wanted the athletes competing in the liver games to be the best athletes in the world. sense, themake much will be affected if the best athletes aren't competing. i understand where the ioc is on baseball, because the best players in the world are more focused on winning a world series title in they are unwitting american metal. with that said, i think it is a great tragedy that women's softball that doesn't have a world series is not in the olympic games. to supportworking women's softball in getting into the olympic games. the ioc is not sure that is the move. they don't want to admin sports without women's sports, women's sports without men's sports. from the united states alone the committee standpoint, we would like to see women's softball in the games. they don't have the world series. they don't have that premier championship that young women athletes can aspire to after their ncaa championships. i think that is a great question, but i think the ioc has decided for the time being they want the best athletes in the world coming to the olympic games, not something else. in basal, that wouldn't happened. >> a follow-up question. it points out you have been involved in the rescue of women's softball and wrestling as olympic sports. wrestling made it, softball did not. why do you think the olympics committee doesn't want to consider softball, and what are your thoughts about this? i realize you just touched on that, you may want to elaborate. >> i think the ioc does want to consider softball. in that context, they can only add one sport. they had to pick between wrestling and softball. and that was a difficult choice. i played squash for a long time. i would love to seize wash in the games. i would love to see women's softball. i can imagine the games without wrestling. whatneed to ask themselves can we do to continue to make the olympic games relevant to younger audiences. inyou look at what happened the winter games, they did a beautiful job when they added snowboarding. the ratings went up, interest went up, snowboarding is a big part of the winter will let the games now. olympic gamester now. how do we get skateboarding in? there are kids all over the world were doing this. if we want to connect with the under generations, we have to find ways that the sports they are active in other sports that will be competed in the olympic games. >> after all the controversy over domestic violence and other issues plaguing the nfl, you spoke out last month about the domestic charges filed against hope solo, the u.s. soccer goalkeeper. still, she is on the team at no punishment levied against her as she awaits trial. also, olympic swimmer michael phelps has pleaded guilty to dui and is suspended. other any specific rules about punishing olympians charged with a crime? do you see a culture shift in the sports world would it comes to addressing violent behavior against athletes? >> let me answer your last question first. i do see a culture shift. for whatever reason, it doesn't seem acceptable just to say wait and see what happens in the trial. there seems to be more and more pressure on sports to take action when an athlete is charged with a behavior as opposed to when an athlete is actually found to have committed the behavior. you probably know better than i do what is driving that. but i know that a lot of our governing bodies are feeling the pressure because in all truth, so many of them aren't equipped to do meaningful investigations when an allegation of misconduct is made. and that's one of the reasons the safe sport initiative is so important, even though it only covers one small slice of abuse. it covers a really important part of abuse. one that needs to be addressed. we do need to bring that resource to bear. on the hope solo situation, and the michael phelps situation, both of those cases are pending. it would be an appropriate for us to comments on what may have happened, or what should happen until we have a version of the facts that either has been determined by a third party, or that all the parties have ignored are the case -- big knowledge are the case. clausesu expect morals in future contracts with athletes, in the wake of michael phelps's recent transgressions? >> this is my recovering lawyer self coming out. i know morals clauses have been a part of those contracts for a long time. we have a code of conduct that we ask each of our athletes to sign. and they do sign. the truth is, if you look at our delegation in london, they were almost without exception. we had one tiny incident. , themost without exception american athletes comported themselves in a way that made us all proud. one of the things we're trying to do is focus the athletes attention on it in advance as opposed to after the fact. ask each of our athletes to participate in an ambassadors program. we gather them together for half a day with their team somewhere. we have famous athletes come in and explain what a great opportunity this is for them to sell american, to help themselves, and importantly, how easy it is in today's world to screw up and impair your long-term value. i honestly believe that that program, which is operated out of the usoc, is invaluable in making our athletes think about consequences in advance. we really haven't had any significant issues in the last few games. i hope we can keep doing that. >> how often does your law background come into play when promoting olympic games or being ceo of the u.s. olympic committee? >> i have three kids, all of whom are either just out of college or in college. when you talk about law school, when i tell them is -- i think law school is tremendous. it teaches you critical thinking skills that are valuable to you throughout your life. skills, that way of thinking in everything that i do. being a lawyer is a different question than being able to take advantage of the great training that you get in law school. i am grateful for that training. i do use it all the time. >> are the olympics now drug-free, and does the united states do a better job of testing and enforcing that than the rest of the world? >> i think our athletes get tested more, and more stringently than any other athletes in the world. they are certainly among the top 1% of athletes in the world. we externalized our drug testing. it was created in or around the year 2000. the usoc used to do its own drug testing and adjudication. what we realize that we were the fox guarding the hen house. our job was to win medals. we are also responsible for catching and adjudication dopers, that is a conflict of interest. we moved it outside of our $2 million budget, more than 3.5 million of that goes to support the anti-doping agency. we have one of the strongest anti-doping agencies in the world. sport is not drug-free, by any means. the cheaters have an advantage, because they are thinking of new ways to cheat for we can think of new ways to test them for cheating. we have to continue to invest. we have to continue to do research. it is very important to us come in a context where we are not just about the outcome. we are not just about winning or losing. we've a value system that underlies everything we try to sell to sponsors, broadcast partners, and donors. if we don't invest in that, it will have a huge impact on the brand long-term. the 2022 world cup is being hosted in one of the hottest regions on earth, the middle east. causing concerns over the health of both the athletes, and construction workers building venues. how do you foresee global sporting events like the olympics being affected by mobile climate change in extreme weather conditions? >> i think it is fantastic that we have a number of countries who are rising up and wanting to invest their substantial resources in sport. i think that is a wonderful thing. i think we have to rely on the ioc and the international sport federations to make sure those investments are appropriate. hopefully, through the oversight of the ioc and the international federations, when competitions are held in places that are hot, it won't be at the expense of our athletes. that is critically important. supportive of the and departing of places like qatar. we are looking to the ioc and international federations to make sure that those competitions are held under conditions and circumstances that promote athletics, as opposed to the opposite. >> a couple of marketing questions. how has new media effected the marketing of the lithic movement? -- the olympic movement? >> the audience people are striving to connect with is not people my age. i think the average viewer for the sochi olympics was 50 years plus the average age. othersstion for nbc and is how we make the olympics relevance to those younger audiences. the answer is digital media. social media. we have made an investment, we are very engaged with facebook and twitter. we believe in it. i'm not on facebook, i don't do twitter. our communications person doesn't let me for very good reasons. we have to be very relevant in that space. i know it is a priority for nbc. coming out of vancouver, they did some research. what they found was people watching on digital media actually enhance their viewership. it increased their numbers on television. it didn't hurt them. i think nbc is all in on this proposition. >> a related question. we are the press club, of course. the olympics have traditionally been a television only events. streaming on the internet is accelerating. what will be the media mix in the future? >> i think it will be incumbent on us and nbc to have the widest possible mix. at the end of the day, different people access through different platforms. any rightsnts, what holder would want, is the ability to exploit their rights across all platforms. personally, i will continue to watch on television when i'm not on the games. but i guarantee, my three children will not. theave to make sure we have widest possible access across all platforms. >> how do you think social media engagement will drive the country's bid for hosting a future olympics? >> i think one of the most important factors that we look at as we select a city is what kind of support does the bid leadership have in their cities? if they want the support of young people, they are not going to be able to get it in the traditional way. air not going to be able to get it for newspapers and television as much. a lot of it will be driven by social media. all four of our bid cities are thinking through what is their social media plan going to be. that social media plan will have a great deal to do with their ability to demonstrate to us that their city really wants to host the games in the united states. it will have an extremely important impact on our susman of what kind of public support -- our assessment of what kind of public support each of these cities has. >> when you walk into your office at the usoc, what is usually your main goal for the day? changed funny, that has since i first started in 1999. i started work three days after the salt lake city bid scandal erupted. i got to work on that commission with senator mitchell. it was a lot of crisis management. 2010, it wasd in all about vancouver for the first two weeks. i started about one week before the vancouver games. we had a glorious success there. when i got back, we were facing some really serious issues with the ioc. we began our revenue-sharing negotiations. we began trying to rebuild those international relationships. we are on as like fairly stable course. we are headed in the right direction. we have the opportunity to be more opportunistic. and be more strategic, as opposed to trying to put our finger in the dike, we are trying to figure out how we can create more resources to support our assets. we are able to support one half of the national team athletes in the united states. if you take our 48 national governing bodies, their young men and women who are good enough to be on their sports national team, who are not receiving support from us. the athletes who get support for monthet less than $2000 a from us on average. it is not enough to live on. our job is to figure out how we can be creative and enhance the resources that we can make available to our athletes, so we can fund all of our national team members. we are leading up to the conclusion of this. it has been an informative q&a session preceded by your remarks. what are the major priorities for the u.s. olympic committee through 2020, and how is the organization tackling them? have a handfulwe of overriding priorities. one is to continue to build out the major gift program. we started a new foundation last year called the united states olympic and paralympic foundation. we are raising $20 million the year in gross major gifts. we should be at $50 million plus at some point in the future. we have to continue building that out. that is clearly a priority. finding a way that we can host the olympic games on u.s. soil is a priority. we are not going to do it if it doesn't make economic sense. but we are going to work really hard to try and find a way that it does make economic sense. safe sport is a priority for us. we have got to get this done. we have to launch this pilot program. our athletes careers in education, transition of their a fourths i would say priority for us. so many of our athletes leave the system in their mid-20's. because they want to get going with the rest of their lives. they are not actively engaged in considering what am i going to do after i compete? if we can create more meaningful programs for them, where they are looking at education and career decisions in their teens and 20's while they are still competing, so that they can compete with the confidence, so they have a much better sense of what they will be doing with the rest of their lives, i think it would help them immensely. >> thank you. we are almost out of time. before asking the last question, we have a couple of housekeeping matters to take care of. first, i would like to remind you of an upcoming luncheon which is on november 7. with robert mcdonald, the secretary of veterans affairs. i would like to present our ug to oural mo guests. yesterday, this is light enough that you can easily packet in your bag when you travel around the world. it.show >> thank you. [applause] >> for our last question, what is your favorite olympic sport, and why? [laughter] >> i have so many. let me tell you about some great olympic moments. one of my favorite moments, and my team and gets angry at me at times and i say this. but when derek redmond's father came out on the track, i think during the barcelona games, he was running a race and pulled a hamstring with 100 yards to go. he fell down, his dad came out of the stands and helped him ross the finish it is moments like that than make you realize that is not the winning, but the trying that matters. it think about lake placid, and the men that won the gold medal under unbelievable circumstances. you look at the great performances over time of our athletes, like carl lewis. there are so many things that cause me to be so grateful for having what i think is the best job in the united states of america. i get to see these young men and women almost everyday. i get to see them do what they do. they are very helpful. mble. they are not in it for anything other than the best they can be. those moments are created for me every day on the job. i can't thank you all enough for being here. it was a real pleasure. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] all for coming today. i would like to thank the national press club staff for organizing and facilitate today's event. a final here's reminder. you can find more information about the national press club on her website. if you would like a copy of today's program, please check out our website at press.org. thank you. we are adjourned. >> in about an hour, moral and athletics come a specifically as the big 12 conference hosts a forum on where the money goes. panel following that come on whether student athletes should get paid. first, new restrictions on travelers coming to america after president obama met with health officials earlier. usa today reporting they are going to be required to have their temperature taken an answer health questions. those measures will be put into place by u.s. customs and border protection. they begin saturday at new york's jfk. the next weekend we work, washington dulles, and atlanta's hartville jackson. with greater scrutiny on travelers from sierra leone, nigeria, and chicago. this is from today's white house briefing. the department of homeland security just announced any travelers from west africa, from liberia, guinea, sierra leone or have to go to the five airports you have designated for enhanced screening measures. as you have said last week, that covered virtually everybody that was coming in
are in. >> it's a terrible bill. it is a terrible bill. the league of conservation voters called it a radical attempt to destroy safety and environmental regulation. right now we are in need of putting whole new regulations in place to count ter ebola crisis. the bill she supports would sthaubt to a vote in congress. if you think congress is working, great, you should listen to her on this. it's a way to let the most radical people in congress veto l kind of progress on safety and health that keep your food safe and allow us to respond to crisis like the ebola epidemic. it's a radical attempt. i passed a bill with chris gibson to stop this energy price hike and we got it passed through the house that. is more than anyone has ever done on this. we started from behind because she left a mess and we are trying to clean it up and we are going to win this thing. >> let's move on to foreign policy specifically in the middle east. we are engaging in air strikes in iraq and syria to combat the islamic state and arming rebels in syria to engage directly the islamic state. president obama said he does not want to put boots on the ground but each day it seems we are hearing more negative news to advances that isis is making. do you think at some point the u.s. is going to have to put troops on the ground to directly combat the islamic state? >> like everybody here i'm deeply concerned, i'm alarmed by the turmoil we see in the middle east, by the violence by americans and citizens of other countries being beheaded by isis. this say terrible threat. we have a real problem in the united states because there has been a lack of leadership by the president. it is a problem not only for us but for the world. what we need the president to do is art late a clear strategic goal, a clear national interest certainly can do. when we say something, we will do it. we need an exit strategy. that is crucial. we need a plan for victory and an exit strategy and accountability to the public. until the president has led on these crucial issues, it's very hard to have confidence in what he is doing. >> and on the second point. >> congressman maloney failed to stand up to the president on issues like that th and that's a problem in addition. >> on the second part, do you think the military is going to have to put troops on the ground if we really want to combat isis? >> there are military experts who have said that. unless we have leadership and a clear vision that has goals and an exit strategy so we are protecting our troops, yes, i am concerned about it. but i don't want to commit troops unless we have that clear leadership from the president. we don't have that clear leadership and the congressman on not chaled the president issues like this. >> that is ridiculous. i voted against the president's request for authorization to do this action. i stood up to my own party and the leadership of my own party. that's why i'm in the top three members of congress for bipartisan. i'm working for you. i don't think we had a good plan on this and every day that goes by proves it. putting troops on the ground is a terrible idea. we need a real coalition and real partners and they don't exist. where is turkey? do not support putting american kids there. i stood up to the president on this and think it was the right thing to do. i want our kids here getting good jobs, going to school, starting a business. i want to take your tax dollars if you have to spend them on washington and pour them back into our communities. i don't want our taxes going to all the other countries in the world. i want to invest in the united states of america. we do not have a plan for success in this conflict. but we can kill the people who hurt our citizens. we have tools in our kit. i support going after the guys who hurt these americans and capture, killing them, bringing them to justice. no one has stood up to the president more than i have and that's facts. is the e hudson river indian point energy center. this question is for congressman maloney. should it be recertified and what should replace the power as a source of energy for the new york city area? >> what i have said is we need a responsible plan. this say big difference between us. congresswoman says let it go forever. might have to do with the fact she received more money from the nuclear industry than any other when she was in office. as a parent, as a member of the community, i think we have to ask tough questions about whether we can keep it going. we have all kind of new generation coming online, we have renewable projects like the one she's been criticizing that i support. there are all kind of ways we can replace that 2,000 mega watts. and we know where this has been done communities have created jobs by transitioning these plants and grown the economy in the surrounding area. i'm concerned about the workers and economy there. but no one would ever put a nuclear power plant in the middle of our region today. it's a ticking time bomb. the congresswoman says let it go forever. i believe we can transition it away from indian point and keep energy prices low and keep the economy going and get that thing offline. >> indian point energy center if closed would -- closing indian point as the congressman advocates and i'm not surprised because he wants to you pay more for your energy. you could imagine what it would be like if we shut down indian point which would result in a 30% strike in our energy prices. people can't afford that congressman. and 2,000 people would lose their jobs. not only, that but indian point only emits steam into the air, just water vapor. no carbon. if you want to talk about a low carbon footprint. talk a zero carbon footprint from this energy center. would we put it there today? no. but do we operate it safely? absolutely. they are doing their best to make sure it's safe and reliable. it's a great clean source of energy for us. it would be a terrible burden on the people of the hudson valley and our environment if it were shut. >> if you could be more specific about what transition opportunities are available right now. >> the congresswoman received more money from the owners of the indian point than any other member of congress. she visited. she was probably there to pick up a check. even the people who support indian point will tell you in 20 years it's going away. we have to plan for a new source of energy that the location. if you look at natural gas coming online. if you look at the transition nish they've the governor put on the table to bring more power into the region. if you look at the opportunities through conservation. i have a bill called the pace bill that would allow home owners to make energy efficient improvements. the best generation is conser is vation. we can do better on that. if you look at the renewable technologies that have come and gone. and things like wind and solar. there is every reason to believe we can over time responsibly move away from indian point and remove forever the threat of a nuclear accident in the middle of the hudson valley. >> i do want to give her a quick chance to respond and i believe we are going to closing statements. >> i support an all of the above energy plan that will lower our energy prices, not raise them the way the congressman l. when he takes credit for the pace protection act that is classic congressman maloney. because i was the original sponsor of that bill in the house of representatives. i put it together. nice to fail to credit the folks ho came up with the pace plan. great democratic councilman with whom i worked in a bipartisan way to make sure we got that bill on the floor. we need to have energy prices we can afford, not $200 million poured into a project that makes no sense and will only pollute. up. have to ask you to wrap have you one minutes for closing both of you. >> i want to thank the college, time warner cable news and ourst host and congressman maloney for joining us tonight. there is a very clear contrast here in where the candidates here stand. i stand with you. i stand with the hudson valley. i stand for jobs here in the hudson valley. real jobs that mean we can put people to work because our mom and pop businesses that have endorsed me will have fewer burdens, lower energy prices, lower taxes and less regulation. congressman maloney wants washington to make decisions. he want towline his pocket with campaign dollars so he can direct money to you, including $200 million worth of hard earned money from folks here to go forward not an energy generator. it's just a shame that the folks in the hudson valley have someone standing with washington right now instead of with them but i will stand with you. >> thank you all for a lively debate. listen folks, you gave me a chance to represent you in washington. i want to say thank you for that. it's been the honor of my life to do . so i'm proud we listened to you and the solutions we worked on came from you. we listened to our vets so we lowered wait times. we passed the farm bill and reformed the crop bill. we listened to folks that said fix the dams and local infrastructure. that's what i'm doing. we have so much work to do together. i promised i wouldn't forget i'm a product of the middle class. i am proud i built one of the most bipartisan records in congress. top 3%. here we are again with a choice to make. are we going forward together. keep this progress up, keep someone in washington who is fighting for you, listening to you or go with a radical agenda of congresswoman? we rejected that two years ago and it was a good choice. we need to create jobs and build a hudson valley where our kids will want to stay here and where they can be free and have an equal opportunity. i'm asking for another two year term to fight for you in washington. thank you very much. >> that does conclude our 18th congressional district debate. want to thank the congressman and dr. hayworth for participating. please remember that the election is on november 4. we encourage tonche get out and vote. we'd like to remind you to stay with time warner cable news for tomorrow on "washington journal," as a campaign issue. -- health care a campaign issue. atshington journal" live 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, friday night c-span, at 8:00 p.m. debate coverage continues in primetime. color empowerment conference. filmmaker and daughter of robert f kennedy laurie kennedy on her latest film, the last days of vietnam. on the latest advances in brain science, michio kaku. bookcoverage of the texas festival in austin. continues sunday. on american history tv on c-span 3, the 1864 reelection and saturday night at 8:00, on lectures and history, the modernization of businesses and households and its impact on society. reagan's 1964, a time for choosing, speech. think aboutwhat you the programs you are watching. call us -- e-mail us at comments@c-span .org. or send us a tweet @cspan # comments. follow the conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. the 2015 student cam competition is underway. worth $150,000 in prizes. the theme -- the three branches and you. you must use c-span video, show varying points of view. grab a camera and get started today. in illinois 13th district, republican congressman rodney davis facing a challenge from ann callis. they met for a debate last week in champaign, illinois. this is one hour. [applause] >> welcome to the 13th congressional district candidates debate. we wanted to make this debate different from others you've seen. we are going in depth on a few topics to get to the heart of what these candidates believe. there are no podiums, just two people who want to represent you in congress. let me introduce them now. you in congress. let me introduce them now. republican rodney davis and democrat ann callis. asking the questions tom case sis. my role is asking for clarification when need, making sure things keep moving for you and our studio audience. we're going to take questions for the candidates from our viewers and listeners on twitter and fsh. -- facebook. let's get to it. it's been about a year since the launch of insurance exchanges under the affordable care act. we drew straws and quongman davis gets the first question. >> congressman davis you pivotted from wanting to repeal and replace the affordable care act. what has changed? >> nothing has changed. i don't believe i've pivotted at all. i've been clear since i was a candidate for this office and since i've been serving. i would be for repealing and replacing and i've led the charge to make fixing to the affordable care act and i'm going to continue do do that. my latest fix was a hire more heroes act. came from my advisory board to ensure veterans who are receiving their healthcare wouldn't count toward the affordable care act 50 employee limit and that would incentivize small businesses to hire more heroes that. went to legislation. it passed the house of representatives with only one no vote. you can't get much more bipartisan than that. it's waiting in the senate to be heard. it passed the house again as part of a larger package and it sits in the senate with over 380 good pieces of legislation, many common sense fixes to the affordable care act. >> spevingically what would you change or repeal? >> that's one change i led the charge on. i'm proud to be talking about that change. i want to make sure we put together a plan that's not going to cost consumers more. when you look at the affordable care act, there were many in illinois that signed up for private policies. 185,000 individuals were estimated to have lost their coverage before the affordable care act. the coverage they were promised they could keep. those are the types of changes why we need a system that's going to cover preexisting conditions. to make sure we have no lifetime caps. make sure that youngsters who can't find a job are able to stay on their parent's insurance plans until they are 26. we can't continue to see families have to pay more. and in the first year, besides the fact that $2 billion was spent on a website, many families, especially women over the age of 55 are paying an average of $2100 to $2800 more per year for coverage tifpblet crease on families has to stop and i want to make the fixes that are necessary and many of those is it stalled in the united states senate and they need to move to the president's desk. >> same question to you. are there parts of the law you'd like to see changed? >> i think mr. davis has developed political amnesia because he voted 50 times to repeal at this time a.c.a. and shut down our government to the tune of $24 billion because he didn't like the law. but traveling around our district people do like parts of it and people i've heard as it unfolds having become a candidate when it first came out and now traveling around that people like they can stay on their parent's insurance policy until they are 26 since we have nine colleges and universities in this district. seniors like the prescription drug savings close to $2,000 a year and no discrimination against preexisting conditions. they do like that. and i hear more and more stories, for instance a woman came to my office about a month ago and five or six years ago her son had developed non-hodge kins limp foam massachusetts he as aged out of her insurance and she shopped around to get him treatment. it was expensive and her son finally passed away. and she believes if the a.c.a. were in place at the her son would be alive. i hear stories like that. we have to keep in place what works. 14,000 people in our district in the 13th congressional district have insurance now that didn't before the a.c.a. was passed. so to take congressman davis and his party's position to rip that away from 14,000 people isn't what we should do. we should see what works and what i would do is travel around the district and listen. have office hours. listen to what people are saying so anecdotele evidence would turn into impeer cal evidence and we can fix what doesn't work. >> are there any things you don't think work? >> if people want to stay on their own insurance policy they should be able to. i hear that a lot. i hear about some small businesses would like to increase the size instead of 50 to receive the subsidy. so i do hear that. those are two specific things i would try to start working on and of course lowering the cost for middle class and our working families. that's how i would listen and see how it unfolds and get right to work. >> we want to get to cost. >> if one of the goals of the affordable care act is to make healthcare more affordable to cover more people, we have people who are signing up for medicaid and subsidies but for those that don't qualify but see their premiums rising, what can congress do to make it more afford snble >> one woman came up to me and she's never had insurance. she's self-employed and she's terrified that's going to be ripped away if the republicans have their way and repeal the a.c.a. again, it's listening. listening to the people and how we contain cost. that was the goal of the a.c.a. is lowering the cost. what can we do to lower the cost and listen and get to work. >> you have no specifics in mind right now? >> yes, i think we should, as i mentioned before, that we should be able to with companies that are r50 plus companies should be able to possibly receive some of those subsidies and people should be able to stay on their own insurance and that would lower cost. >> same question, if the goal of the a.c.a. is to lower cost for people, do you see that happening? >> if we're success informal changing the affordable care act with a market based approach it's going to cover preexisting conditions and continue to make sure there are no lifetime caps and make common sense changes like the hire more heroes act. i appreciate my opponent reminding the viewers i voted 50 times to repeal or replace or change the affordable care act. it's actually 54. i would ask which of those 54 otes would she not have taken? what would she support or not support? these are common sense changes we've tried to implement. that's why i'm going to continue to fight to lower premiums. i'm on obama care by law members of congress have to sign up for their healthcare benefits on the a.c.a. exchange. my premiums went up. my deductibles went up. and in my families case i've reached the out of pocket maximum due to an illness because my wife is a 15 year colon cancer survivor. we've seen how families strug toll meet that out of pocket maximum. those are real cost to real families and we need to make real changes to this law. >> before we get to the next topic we have a question from twitter. about half of this district will vote for the other candidate. how will you represent the other half if you win? >> the exact same way i've been representing the entire district for the last almost two years. i believe i've gone to washington making the promise that i wanted to pass a farm bill. not only i did help pass a farm bill. i helped write it into it's final completion a's member of the conference committee. a committee where both members of congress come together where w members from the senate and work out our differences and put together a good common sense piece of legislation. and that's what we did to make sure agriculture remains a pillar of a growing economy and saved taxpayers $23 billion. it's the common sense fixes i'm going to continue to do on a district wide basis regardless of whether or not one votes for me. >> i'm glad congressman davis did help pass the farm bill. but this is the most non-productive congress since we've measured congress. it's a do nothing congress and we need to start getting things done. when i was chief judge, in a bipartisan way instituted significant court reforms. started the first veterans court in the state of illinois and i'm glad to see that congressman davis showed an interest in our veterans. t we started that rude meant you willryly. when i put a committee together to start reform, i never cared if that person were republican or democrat, we put the best people on that committee to get the job done. we were able to create the first veterans court in the state of linois, no taxpayer dollars, recruiting the best people to be a part of that program. it's grown to be a model for our nation. hundreds and hundreds of veterans have gone through that program and graduated. they don't reoffend. it was nominated for a national awarpped and won. a few months ago i had two veterans come up to me separately and they told me the veterans court saved their lives. it was the first time they felt like someone cared about what they were going through. i think i have a record of reaching across the aisle and getting things done and that's what i would do. i always had an open door policy as chief judge, listening and then acting. >> next topic. jobs and economy. the first question for judge. >> there is increasing the minimum wage but the congressional budget office said it could lift 900,000 people out of poverty but a half million could lose their jobs. business owners say they can't afford it and they'd have to lay off people or push the price on. do you support that? >> absolutely. i have traveled around this district and gone to many community centers. people are choosing between food and diapers. people are going to school full time and trying to better themselves and they are falling further beneath the poverty line. it's time we raise minimum wage in this nation. 6-10 minimum wage earners are women. many of them heads of households. then when we raise the minimum wage, these people then are moving into commerce and spending money and reinvigorating our community. >> is there anything you would want to imp meant to off set the cost to businesses who might struggle to raise that wage for their workers? >> i just think it's time we raise the minimum wage. again, as chief judge i listened and had an open door policy. if i would of course listen and see what was going on and see if actually businesses were cost were raised. but fundamentally it's time we raise the minute wage. i hear frit so many people in the community centers traveling around our district and it's just time. >> congressman, do you support raising the federal minute numb stpwhage >> i would support an increase as long as it was paired with off set,, tax credits, similar to a bill i introduced to allow for tax drotes allow businesses to hire young apprentices in the trades and labor. we need to grow infrastructure jobs. we need to off set cost. at's not the most partisan organization thattest mates without any off sets 500,000 families would lose their job. i don't want any family to lose their job. we need to find solutions to grow our economy. illinois is lagging behind the rest of the nation. as a matter of fact, illinois over the first seven months of this year has been last in job creation because we have a dysfunctional government in springfield. we need to work toward creating real jobs. i'm happy to be joined by my dad tonight. my dad walked into a brand new restaurant called mcdonalds and he started working a minimum wage job. starting flipping hamburgers and had no intention of staying there. my dad worked his way up and because he did that, he allowed my family to that, he allowed my family to achieve the american dream and no young person should ever listen to a policymaker who says you should turn your minimum-wage job into your career now. because your career should be the american dream, not keeping a job that is paying you minimum wagering out. and talk toeges many students and asked them if they are on minimal wage. many do. i ask him any of you want to stay in that career and none of them are raised. if we raise the minimum wage, it will cost our universities and to lament anyons minimum wage at a time when the state is not fully funding higher education. it is a time when students will have to be laid off on the job when they are working so hard to help pay for their ever-increasing costs of college education. >> the congressional budget that the lowest earners in the middle class of lost ground in the past three decades while the income of the highest earners have grown sometimes by three digits. is it the government's role to address income inequality and, if so, how would you do that? >> one way to address income inequality is by minute -- by raising the minimum wage. i don't know what student to have a that would minimum-wage job that would keep them from falling further into the poverty line. point his finger at the dysfunctional government in springfield, but what about the dysfunctional government in washington, d.c. today? that is one way we can address income inequality. also, it's time that we passed the paycheck fairness act. i talked to many women around this district and the fact that in illinois 70 plus cents on the dollar that women make not commensurate with men. it is time we do that. -- even could even warren buffett has said it is s a lessert he pay tax rate than even his secretary pays. we need to reform the tax code, loop holeslosing the for corporations. >> i will tell you, when we look at the minimum wage, and the students i talked to, let me make myself perfectly clear, many of them work at the universities to pay their way through college. when the university tells us they will have to lay off students, that is not a net positive if they can't have an offset to that minimum-wage increase. we want the students to continue to work through their education. we need to also look at equal pay. i will tell you the best thing you can do to find out on a politician how they view equal pay is look at what they can control. if you look at my office, i pay the women in my office $4000 more per year. my opponent, when she was in charge of the county court system there was unable pay from anywhere to 8% to 15% per year. >> what about income inequality? should the tax could be changed? absolutely. >> we need to grow our economy to grow jobs. we need to do everything we can to create good paying careers and that is exactly what i have tried to do throughout my short time in washington. that is why i helped write and processough ethe entire for the water infrastructure bill. water infrastructure is enormously important to our entire district's economy. upt of the products or go and down the mississippi river screams the old district of illinois. we need to put folks back to work and that is the first step. >> you have been talking about university students. we got tweets from two of them. i am a student and an undocumented immigrant. how do you support students like me? how about comprehensive immigration reform. >> massac county was unionized and i am honored to have the support. negotiations. i don't know where he is coming from with that at all. it is time we pass comprehensive immigration reform. i have traveled around this district. students have addressed that. but also looking through and touring research park and talking to the executives at their number one issue is comprehensive immigration reform. daviss time that mr. asked speaker boehner who came down to raise money for him, hey, let's pass comprehensive immigration reform. it is a difficult process. 10 to 13 years and people have to pay fines and have extensive background checks. liberated -- it is a deliberative difficult process. if we pass competence of -- if we pass comprehensive immigration will have $1.4 trillion into our nations economy in the next nine years. gdp after that would go up 5%. it is really time. i think it would be about $1.4 trillion added into our economy. i am open to discussing comprehensive immigration reform package. but the one that passed in that my opponent supports will not pass in the house. we have good ideas to move in a step-by-step approach to address many of the issues at the students at the universities and colleges i am blessed enough to represent. i find it completely wrong for es to attract -- for universities to attract students for degrees. we need scientists and cyber security. i find it wrong that we don't have a system in place that will then allow them to be employed here in america. we tell them to come get educated here and then tell them to go back and compete against us. these are some of the types of provisions that we can't come together on. the far right in the far left don't want to solve this problem. sa system.broken vi most of the illegal immigration in our system does not come from our southern border. they comes from our airports. we have to develop a system that will be a true solution without playing politics. i want to make sure that when my children as may 27 years from thishich was the last time issue is supposedly fixed, i want to make sure that we put a solution on the table that is actually going to work to fix that broken visa system. >> last month, president obama and a handful of u.s. allies launched airstrikes against isis. obama recently described it as a "long-term campaign." to ask suffers question. criticizedyou have the military action against the islamic state. what would success look like to you and how long are you willing to continue with just primarily airstrikes in that region? >> is a great question but i don't profess to be a military strategist and i don't have access to the intelligence that the president does. it is why i have supported him. he says he has listen to the generals under his command as commander-in-chief and he has told us this is a plan and the strategy that will succeed. if he and the generals and their military leaders offer up a different strategy, i am willing to take a good look at that and consider it. i want to make sure that victory is wiping out isis. this is the most inhumane radical organization that we have seen in my lifetime. an organization that glorifies the heading individuals, an organization that is estimated at 31,000 soldiers, these are people who are waging a war against humanity. not a war against restraint hattie -- not a war against christianity and not a war against the west, most of those who have fallen our fellow muslims who were not pure enough. this is the type of battle that we have to rewrite it in this group. i believe we missed a golden opportunity to do so when isis was marching across the open desert of iraq. i wish he would have acted sooner. i was proud to support his plan before we left washington just a few weeks ago. i stand ready to go back tomorrow if there is a better plan. >> how do you know if you have eradicated it? is there any way of telling? couldn't this go on forever? >> when isis does not control any towns or cities in iraq or syria, believe that is as close as we can get to eradicate. -- to eradication. that doesn't mean we stop. that doesn't mean we stop asking our allies to take the lead on the ground. that does not mean that we stop making sure that isis doesn't have the ability to regroup and make more tax on innocent americans and innocent syrians and iraqis. pbs poll show that the majority of americans believe u.s. ground troops will be necessary. do you agree? i do have to separate my pressure all from my personal in this. my son is an army ranger, and infantry ranger. he was sent to kuwait. he is blessedly home now and i was able to welcome him home. but the airstrikes i did support. i am not privy to the security briefings. my son did not tell me much. one thing he did tell me was sheer and utter brutality that is going on there. so i think we will need to join with non-jihadist sunnis in iraq, a multilateral approach, not a new unilateral approach, and listen to our military leaders. i know we have the best military in the world but we should not go in there unilaterally and yet on down. it would have to be a weight-nine-see. wait-and-see situation. >> would you support groups on the ground? >> if our military leaders say so and if it is a multilateral approach, i would. i haven't seen firsthand. i know we have the best fighting force in the nation. my son is now in a different he is calledow, if over there, he and his brothers and sisters in arms will do the best of their ability to defend our nation. >> do you think more terror attacks against the u.s. are inevitable? if so, should we be prepared to give up even more civil liberties than we have already? >> it's a balance. and i hope it is not inevitable. i hope not. having been a judge, i think any --these types of process is processes that would continue to gather information, whatever that means, that it should go through judicial process. but security has to be balanced with our freedoms and our individual rights. the way it has played out the last several years? >> having played a judge, yes. a little concerned. i think it should go through a worn system and go through a judicial process and have judicial oversight, absolutely. >> next, entitlements. like socialrams security, medicare and medicaid, food stamps among others. social security is one of the largest domestic expenses of the federal government. boomer generation retiring, cbo expects the cost to keep rising without the revenue to fully supported. -- support it. you say you want to preserve the system. how would you do that? would you be for changing benefits? >> social security is so important. traveling on the district, it is so important. a lot of people in this district, i was at a pig roast and an over -- an older woman grabbed my arm and said please do everything you can to protect social security. so i would be against any change cpi, raising the retirement age. but in a bipartisan manner, we could create a commission and see how we could keep social security solvent for not only now but for future and future generations. who was anandma irish immigrant who came over and she was a nurse at saint elizabeth hospital. i saw her when she retired rely on her social security firsthand. so what should we keep on the table and possibly raising the payroll tax cap and where that is, i don't know. i would have to listen. but it would be a great priority for me to keep social security solvent. and how we do that and how we could work together and get it done. >> if the payroll tax cap, if viable atn was not the time, do you have any other area -- other ideas? >> i don't know why that would not be politically viable at the time. that should be on the table. but absolutely, i would be against any type of change cpi or raising the retirement age. >> same question. >> i want to say, first of all, thank you for correcting my error in grammar. inhumane and humane. i apologize to the viewers. i do agree with my opponent that we do need to create a bipartisan commission to do with social security. as we have seen actuaries say, social security will not be sustainable as is. i hope we can have an adult obsession, a bipartisan conversation in washington to do so. that is exactly what was part of the ryan budget proposal to do, which was to create a bipartisan opportunity to discuss possible andtions to social security its insolvency that is coming up -2033.ut 2032 we both agree. we don't want to see benefits cut at all for anyone who is on social security and i want to continue to fight to make sure our social security recipients get everything they were promised. weneed to make sure that have social security notches for this generation but for future generations. i notice i did not get asked your question. i think by voting record clearly shows that i want that balanced approach between privacy and protecting americans. i want to make sure our intelligence officials don't acquire so much data and they tell us they need to find a needle in the haystack that they haystack hack -- the so large that they will never find a needle. thatt to rein in issues are a threat to our individual liberties. >> would you be for raising payroll taxes? a i want to make sure we have bipartisan commission that will discuss a portfolio solutions. i talked about discussing means testing. i don't think it is appropriate that bill gates can receive social security benefits when others who are living on social security have to do so. i think bill gates would gladly give up his social security benefits to save the system for those who need it the most. that needs to be part of the discussion. we need to make sure we have that adult conversation and i hope there are some new ideas that come out. the president stood in the room speaking to a republican conference in washington and professed his support for changed cpi. many in the room were surprised by that. so i think the president will want to discuss change cbi and i don't know if that is a proposal that will become reality or not. >> both of you brought up bipartisanship. what would be your nonnegotiable? what is your top priority? 55, 50 six ande above and a receiving benefits right now see no benefit cuts whatsoever. >> is for social security? >> right. >> changed cpi, absolutely against that and raising the eligibility age for retirement. >> you mentioned the paul ryan budget which you voted for. you said it was an imperfect plan. are there a lot of parts that you would like to revise or undo or eliminate? >> there is no perfect bill that comes out of washington. what we need to do is make sure that we judge the quality pieces of that legislation versus those that you may not be as favorable on. case, we have to, as americans, we have to look at balancing our budget. this is the only budget that was ever offered that balances in 10 years. i think that is a very great goal. >> you said it was a perfect so aboutst have a few ideas it that need to be eliminated. >> i do. when it comes to addressing telegrams, dressing other programs that are related -- andessing pell grants, addressing other programs that are related, we need to prioritize how we spend money. that is exactly what you need a vision. that is exactly what this rhyme budget did. it gave america a vision that we will have a balanced budget in 10 years. it also gave us the opportunity to make the senate actually have to fulfill their constitutional duty and pass their own budget. i proudly supported one of the first of those i made in washington, no vote/no pay. but you know what, typically, their budget never balances. it increases spending at a time when we have been working at a dutch in a bipartisan fashion to reduce our deficit for the first time since world war ii. it is a travesty we cannot continue to work together to cut spending in areas that need to be cut and increase it in areas that need to be increased and do it through the constitutional preparations process, which is the way washington used to spend money. the washington want. >> -- that washington won't. welfare,tamps, according to the center of budget and policy priorities, the average recipient received 133 dollars a month last year, which is about $1.48 a meal. food stamps is one example. it is meant for people who are certainly to make ends meet. the poverty line for a family of four is to refer thousand dollars a year based on measures from the 1950's. risk orho is most at falling through the cracks? >> thank you very much for your question. i actually make sure i was part of that debate in the farm bill. together somet very commonsense provisions that ensured that we saved taxpayers $8 billion. there is a loophole that some states where using that gave food stamp benefits to anyone who qualified for one dollar a feeding assistance. we did not take away that program. we raised the barometer to $20. it saved taxpayers $8 billion in the program. that is a billion dollars we can put to make sure those who need the benefits the most are going to get them. i also believe that we ought to implement some type of work requirement that was commonplace under the clinton era welfare to work program that has been changed during this administration. for the life of me, i cannot understand why america should be satisfied with a program that doesn't require an able-bodied adult who has no dependent children, who is not enrolled in training or education program, who doesn't take care of an adult dependent, who doesn't have a plethora of other exemptions, i don't know why we can't pair them with a job. if a job is not available, why can't we fed them with community service or volunteer opportunities that will give them skills that will give them the best benefit their families can have. talking to people in these i think it isers, not the right approach to demand someone that they have to have a job when you don't know what that person is going through in ,heir own lives with whatever domestic abuse, drug and alcohol abuse. i think it is a presumptuous way to govern. if you listen to mr. davis, they were burning the midnight oil passing bill after bill after bill. this is the most nonproductive congress we have had since the history of congress. so i think it is a holistic approach. we need to -- first of all, we should not let, as congressman did, extendress long-term benefits. a dyed in the house because everyone went on vacation. were left outns in the cold because they did not have the long-term unemployment benefit. so what can we do? pell grantsngthen for incense, so these people can go to school. people on minimum wage can go to school and be able to better themselves, get a better job. it would not be the rhyme budget way where the needs analysis testing was restricted. a philosophyis that i would have as a congressperson. and you'rethe ground listening. what can you do at these community centers? when i have gone there, there are things that are going on with these urban league, like man can come up where people come out from prison or probation and to sam to get into the employment universe. i have been a statewide leader on justice and mental health and restorative justice issues. not only veterans corps but a true believer in drug core and mental health corps where people can become productive citizens by going through these programs. i can see how i can travel throughout our district to meet county and see what they have going on what they don't and really be our bridge to the justice system which i think would still a true groep to the people in this district. >> what will you do to help improve new fuel energies in illinois and the u.s.? >> i was pleased to see that illinois is number one a renewable energy sources. we have great opportunities here with our nine colleges and universities, especially here at the university of illinois with the wonderful innovators here. so what can we do to expand on this and grow great jobs right here? draw out our innovators. join them with our local businesses. so our students graduate from this wonderful university and want to raise their children in these wonderful world-class communities. so how we can advance them forward. decatur had a chance to get the juno type lab. -- the genome lab. i would continue to work, build coalitions, get things done. i appreciate those comments and that is exactly what i have been trying to do, build coalitions to make sure we actually make our next mission to the moon, to make america energy independent. when you look at energy independence, we have the ability to grow our economy by doing something as simple as building the keystone pipeline. the president, his administration has ever studied this permit more so than any other project in our nations history and even members of organized labor say it will create 45,000 new jobs. canadal is coming from via train and be a truck now. let's put in a pipeline. us make sure we can create american jobs. that is the first step to becoming energy independent. energy homegrown sources, especially here in -- in north dakota, the minimum wage is not set by government. it is done by the market. it is $18 an hour. they decided to make north dakota energy independent. they are reaping the benefits of february low unemployment rate. they are be -- they are reaping the benefits of a growing economy. we are sitting in allawi -- in illinois with the worst job growth numbers in 18 months. >> moving to education. recent estimates show the tuition continues to get more expensive while total stallone that has grown to more than a billion dollars for the first time. education is next. years ago in a debate in the studio, you said that you would increase access to pell and you would not have supported the rhyme budget that would ts.sh funding to pell gran yet you did. what changed? >> nothing changed. a -- thathat it was was a ryan budget that was done before i was elected. that was a much different budget from the one that i supported the balances in 10 years. look at the rhine-murray bipartisan appropriations package that i supported with increased pell grants. it's not just about putting a vision in place. -- only ington, d.c. washington dc can a zero growth be considered a cut. if we can get away from that process, you will not have things like across the board cuts and sequestration. he will let a rank-and-file member of congress who is a freshman to have a say in spending and make sure the college is affordable. i am proud that i actually voted to stop the student loan interest rates from doubling in june and july of 2013. this is something that should never have happened because, at that time, that is something that should never have happened because, at that time, congress was in the business of setting student loan rates. congress should not be in the business of setting student loan rates. sam is should be able to take advantage of student loan rates that are at historical lows. we have to change the debate for how much a student will pay for for ever-increasing debt at the end of college education and what interest rate it going to be because we stopped them from doubling. and we need to do what i have been doing is a member of college -- of congress. campuses, i college talk to those who are in charge about -- when they ask me to ll again, i say what are you doing to make sure those pell grants go further for our students and that students have the ability to work on the university if they want to to help pay their college so they don't have that debt when they leave college? that is the type of leadership i have been exhibiting on this issue and in this district and that is exactly what i intend to continue to do in my next term. >> would you support an increase to pell grant funding? and how would you pay for it? >> -- and how would you pay for it? >> absolutely, we need to increase pell grant funding. a bill out there called the government waste reduction act. it will go after and see where we can cut, see where we can/, see where we can save dollars international economy. set in the studio and said you would not vote for a ryan budget to cut pell grants and then you voted for a ryan budget that cut pell grants. another urban we have that can bring in billions of dollars is the heat program that goes after medicare, fraud, waste and abuse and medicaid fraud waste and abuse. i think it is seven united u.s.s cities and it is a attorney-driven program. it is those types of programs that, talking to students, they do rely on pell grants. whoseed to one woman husband and partner was deployed and and she was struggling going to school so pell grants were very important to her. and that was at the campus of southern university -- southern illinois university at edwardsville. it is the next bubble. that trillion dollar student debt. how do we address that? i think people who graduated and have this student debt should be able to renegotiate their student loans at the current rate. you should not do with the ryan budget does and that is charging students interest on their loans while they are still in school. >> earlier this year, congress cut off funding a comprehensive transportation bill until next year. >> would you support an increase gallongas tax, 18.4% per federal gasoline tax for bridge and highway repairs and other transportation items given what jennifer has laid out? '>> no, i don't. it would overly burden are middle-class and working families. down the roadcan which causes a lot of uncertainty for our labor, whether they will have any infrastructure project are not. i have heard this from a lot of our labor unions. again, i would be against a gas tax. >> use it on the transportation committee. what do you think? >> before i get to that, let me just what my opponent has said. let me be clear. the ryan budget i voted for did not cut tell grants. -- pell grants. the only issue on pell grants that i have raised is raising pell grants. i will continue to make sure that we put college affordability first because i've got a daughter who is going to be going to college next year. i know that many families are facing costs that they did not imagine would be that high when they took their child to kindergarten for the first day and dreamt that they would be able to get that college education. we need to work to reduce the cost of attending college, make sure the state lives up to its promise. transportation. during my endorsement from the chicago tribune, i was called an infrastructure wallop. i was one of the few republicans who actually stood and said we need to invest more in infrastructure. how do we do that? do we do it by sibley raising the gas tax? even -- do we do it by simply raising the gas tax? it is agreed it will go down and dwindle and put us in the same position we are in today with an ever decreasing amount of money that we can dedicate toward infrastructure spending? that is not the best idea. what we need to do and what i have been talking about is putting together a portfolio funding sources. us look at energy independence. let's build the keystone pipeline can mistake revenues from making america energy independent and put it towards our crumbling infrastructure. it is exactly what we did on the water for structure bill that i was proud to cosponsor and pass. that is exactly the type of bipartisan leadership i will continue to exhibit when it comes to our highways and our bridges. i want to make sure we have that debate. as a matter fact, i drove an electric vehicle here in the champagne area because it was a trade with my colleague janice hahn who talks about having an electric vehicle and never putting one penny towards the highway trust fund. it was a great example of bipartisan -- a bipartisan example when we talk about the different transportation needs in her region, which is downtown los angeles, and my region which is 14 counties. in the electric car, i could make it home to taylorville. these are issues we need to address. locally, there is a lot of talk about high-speed rail in central illinois, especially through champaign-urbana. how can an expensive project [indiscernible] >> it is being financed and it is becoming a reality in the chicago-sailors corridor. -- chicago-st. louis corridor. we have seen the improvements. what we need to do is make sure that we put the policies in place. we need to make sure we get that good portfolio of sources. >> i guess what i am talking about is the one through champaign urbana would operate to 20. is that really possible, the cost of that? >> i don't like to say anything is impossible when it comes to infrastructure, tom. we have to make sure that we put our good possibly as -- good policies in place and make sure that america's able to afford that infrastructure so that champaign can be the beneficiary of a high-speed rail corridor. with all ofo work the officials who have come to me and talk to me about this project. we will continue to make sure that we put infrastructure first. that is exactly why i requested that seat on the infrastructure committee. it is why i want to remain on the committee. >> do you think that is a doable project? >> i wouldn't absolutely say no. my role as your congresswoman if i am honored to be elected is what kind of infrastructure projects are feasible and what we can do to improve our communities here. mr. davis said he was in leadership on transportation in he sea -- in d.c. why was the can kicked down the road? i'm sure it is fun driving around in an electric car, but i don't know how it helps the people of this district. we need to get back to serving the people that we were honored to be elected by instead of serving ourselves. so it's an entire philosophy change that needs to be done here. >> we are getting down to the last couple of minutes. tom, you had a question you wanted to ask about military gear to local police departments. demilitarization of local police, we reported that a federal program sold several gear. and is that something the federal government should do? >> it probably sounded like a good idea at the beginning because it was excess military gear. but seeing the visual on tv, what happened in ferguson with these tanks and these police officers dressed in absolute military gear and armed with assault weapons was -- with demonstrate is on the other side should not happen. so there should be some transparency and oversight. i can't tell you my son is an expert on m-four assault weapons. that takes a lot of training. it concerns me that police officers would not have the training to handle these types of weapons. so, yeah, i think this should be looked at and see what you can do with this type of program. >> commerce and? >> i think some of our police officers are some of the most well-trained individuals we have. but i am also concerned about amber apps, about the visual that we sign ferguson, missouri. and that is why this program needs to be looked at by members of congress. we need to ensure that it is going to provide the equipment that will be beneficial to our communities. >> would you prefer that it be shut down? amno, that is exactly what i getting at. you can throw the baby out with the bathwater. in --me program has gave has given to a county a humvee. that takes deputies that when it is snowing and pulls drivers out of the ditch. this is good military equipment and we have to be diligent in making sure that we don't get rid of those opportunities. we have to make sure that we address the visuals that we sign ferguson with the mrap and make sure that those driving through dewitt county have an opportunity to get served. >> you had a question about climate change. >> do you believe that climate change is real and man-made? and what can the federal government do to reduce the effects? >> i have been clear. climate change is real. we can discuss, the chip -- we can discuss how much of it is real and how much of it is man-made. we can lead the world in emissions reductions. but at the same time, not sacrificing growth and jobs in our economy. change, absolutely exists. man-made climate change exists. and all we have to do is look out our window on sundays and absolutely have -- on some days and absolutely have first knowledge that it exists. i think in emissions restrictions should be a place but not at the expense of jobs. it is not a black or white issue but it is a fine balance in but -- balance. but we continue -- we have a great opportunity here with our nine colleges and universities to really go to explore the alternative energy and renewable energy sources and really be a in thisn our nation district with renewable energy sources. >> i have to ask this. if you had a song that played -- [laughter] when you walk in, what would it be? >> what would your theme song be? "roar."perry's >> what's your theme song? >> let's say create "higher." [laughter] >> i love that song. >> thank you to the candidates candidate campaign organizations. i am jennifer roscoe. good night. >> c-span bus campaign 2014 coverage includes debate for the control of congress. stay on touch and on top of the debate. follow us on twitter at c-span. facebook. >> with the 2014 midterm elections just a week away, campaign coverage continues. 8:00, the iowa fourth district debate between steve mauer.nd jim betweenhe utah debate doug owens and his opponent. the new hampshire senate debate. the worknly debate in in senate debate. and then the louisiana senate debate between seven candidates. c-span campaign 2014. more than 100 debate for the control of congress. >> cure a few of the comments we have received on the bowler -- ebola coverage. >> why can't we get behind the president and what he wants to do for the good of the people? that is the ebola thing i think it is overhyped by the media. the time they give it, 10-12 minutes every morning. they are still talking about it. there are other things that are important to talk about, too. >> i would like to see c-span do a question about, is ebola the proof we need a national one payer health care system? we saw what happens in texas with thetalistic -- capitalistic health care system. it will cost millions and millions to clean that up. >> regarding ebola and hospitals not been ready, you had a guest -- it could have been eager nine years ago. -- eight or nine years ago. she wrote a book called pandemic. she went into hospitals preparation. there was readiness for nothing. we have a shortage of doctors and nurses. i wonder how that is going today. we were not ready then. we are not ready now. you should have her back on again. >> continue to let us know what you think about the programs you are watching. call us. e-mail us. or you can send us a tweet. join the c-span conversation. like us on facebook. follow us on twitter. on tuesday, the head of the u.s. olympic committee spoke at the national press club about the relationship to team -- between college athletics and deliberate teams. after his remarks, questions about the olympics and the bid to host 2024 summer games. this is one hour. >> good afternoon and welcome. at the schoolor of public affairs. and the national press club. they are the leading organization for journalists. we are fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the club, please visit the website. members, if our would like to welcome our speaker. guests. table includes if you are applause in the general, members of the public are attending. it is not necessarily a lack of journalistic objectivity. i would like to welcome the c-span audience. you can follow the action on twitter. concludes, iech will ask as many questions as time permits. it is time to introduce error head guest. right, quinn woodward. bright line interactive. shan zynga are, guest of our speaker. mark, washington bureau chief, chairman of the npc broadcasting, and a former president of the national press club. amy morris, of 99.1 fm. ursula larsen, capital standard magazine. and the health and wellness reporter for u.s. news & world report. [applause] a year ago, scott blackmun received a four-year contract extension as ceo of the u.s. olympic committee, which he headed since 2010. this degree of stability is rare for the labor committee. his two predecessors lasted less than a year, and feel a bit committee has had seven ceos in the last 14 years. when blackmun took the reins, the committee had been embarrassed by chicago's failure to land the 2016 olympic games. in fact, chicago finished dead last among the competitors. the organization was criticized by not knowing how to deal with international olympic committees, and it was hit by layoffs and low morale. blackmun is credited with helping restore the financial health of the committee, usoc operates olympic training centers where aspiring competitors train for international optician. unlike what happens in many countries, the usoc is largely dependent on corporate sponsorship. during his tenure, revenue has increased. but there have been a few bumps along the way. the usoc was silent in the wake of the arrest of hope solo. they did speak out against the abuse, calling these charges outstanding. blackmun refrained from any demonstrations or political speech during the winter olympics in sochi. many were upset by what they considered russia's anti-gay laws. today, mr. blackmun will discuss the state of college athletics, and how it impacts the u.s. a team. the usoc has a strong interest in college athletics because so many olympians are college athletes. at the london games, 65 american olympians had participated in college athletics. ladies and gentlemen, scott blackmun here to tell us more about this. join me in welcoming him to the national press club. [applause] >> thank you. and thanks to all of you for being here today. it is an honor for us to be here. i know you all signed up to hear bob bowlsby. i would've loved to hear from him today, bob has been a member of the board of directors at usoc for eight years. i know what a great speaker who he is. bob, you are probably watching. i wish you a speedy recovery. the theme today is college athletics. you all know the stakes for the universities and for the athletes. but it is also an incredibly important topic, more important than you probably know for the success of the united states at the olympic games. before i talk about that, i want to start by giving a brief introduction about the usoc, who we are, what we do, how we came to be. we have been around in one form or another since the late 1800s. during most of our history, things were relatively confusing. there was outright conflict for a long time between the usoc and the aau. while there was consensus that we didn't want to fund our olympic teams with federal dollars, there wasn't a way to bring altogether. that all changed with senator ted stevens, the author of the amature sports act. it may surprise you to learn that we are a 501(c) organization. we are not a government organization. we were given complete responsibility for olympic sport in the united states. and shortly thereafter, paralympic sports. we were certifying a national body for each sport. we have 48 national governing bodies, 39 of which are in olympic sports. each of those ngb's is a separate nonprofit organization responsible for their sport from the grassroots level all the way up to elite competition. what that means is we have to work hand in glove with each of those 48 or each of those 39 olympics sport ngb's. it is not such an easy task. until 2004, the usoc tried to be too many things to too many people. we focused our mission in 2004. we used to have a board of directors of 125 people. we now have 16 people. we still have an executive committee of 25 people, now we have no executive committee at all. importantly, we also focused our mission. our mission was to help olympic and paralympic athletes. how do we help american athletes get medals put around their necks? we have a line of sight between every decision we make in the impact on how many americans will win medals. the act gives us exclusive control of our trademarks. these cookies are a problem. they didn't ask us if they could put the olympic symbol on the cookies. we will have to confiscate those. patrick, who is a former football player, will the what to do with them. we protect our trademarks. they are extremely valuable. senator stevens saw that before anybody else. he saw it as a way to give american athletes the same opportunities that athletes that we compete with around the world get. we don't have the same budget that other countries have. but the word olympic, the word paralympic, the rings, are all things you can't use except under journalistic conditions without our consent. it is that consent that we provide to our sponsors and our licensees. and that is what drives our budget. our budget is about $200 million. that really pales in comparison to the amount spent by our colleges and universities. we, the united states of america, when it comes to olympic and paralympic athletes, are only as strong as the collegiate system today. 65% of the u.s. team in london participated in college sports. students in the pac 12 had 88 medalists. we had 88 medals. we ended up with 104 medals in london, so as you can see, it was an unbelievable contribution to collegiate sports and collegiate athletes. one third of the team in sochi this past winter, including 31 medalists, participated in college sports. if there is one primary message for today, it is this. there are countries like china and russia, who spend billions of dollars on theireathletic programs. and our government has chosen not to. we fully support that. we cannot maintain our position at the top of the medal table unless we find a way to preserve olympic support programs at colleges and universities. the so-called nonrevenue programs are beginning to disappear. in 1981, we had 59 men's gymnastic programs. today there are 16. women's gymnastic programs have dropped from 99 to 62 over the same timeframe. today we have 77 wrestling programs, down from 146 35 years ago. that list goes on. someone said to me no college athletic director has ever been fired for terminating and olympic sport program. our concern, stated very bluntly, is that the inevitable reallocation of resources in college athletics will make it even more difficult for olympic sport programs to survive. the call to action today is urgent. it goes beyond eligibility rules, and focuses on the survival of olympic sport in our country. i think about gwen jorgensen, she attended the university of wisconsin where she swam and ran for the badgers. she earned her master's degree in accounting. she passed her cpa exam. and went to work for a big accounting firm. gwen was well on her way to using her education as a professional, in something other than sports, like so many of for peers. but she discovered the sport of triathlon. she became usa triathlon's rookie of the year in 2010. she made the olympic team in 2012. in 2013, she placed first in four triathlon races, something no other female has done. the united states owes much of its olympic success to collegiate institutions, to the coaches, programs, and facilities. we can't expect them to continue to support us out of the goodness of their hearts. we have to build partnerships that benefit them in addition to us. we want to work with the coaches and the donors. we want to work with the conference commissioners like bob. anyone interested in maintaining and strengthening collegiate sports programs to build partnerships that not only support olympic programs, but help build strong athletic departments at institutions that believe in a balanced human being, and the power of sport to enrich lives and enhance achievement. indeed, to make the world better place. it is not just about team usa. and whether we win or lose, i know as well as anyone, the role of collegiate programs play as developing us as human beings. i went to dartmouth a long time ago. i played soccer, i grew up in chicago. i was a goalie. there was only one goalie on the team at a time it. i thought i was pretty hot stuff. it was 1974. i was allstate, the coach called me. i hadn't heard of dartmouth. he convinced me to go to dartmouth. about a week before i arrived, he told me he had recruited another goalie, my same age and year from the town next to me. who i hadn't heard of, and i frankly wasn't too worried about it. we arrived on campus, and this was a young man who had tremendous athletic talent. my whole identity was wrapped up in being a soccer player. when i got to dartmouth, he ended up starting most of the four years, and i didn't. i started one year out of the four. and it had a huge impact on me. i kind of had to reframe what i wanted to do with my life. how i looked at myself. i knew i was never going to be a professional soccer player. that four years going into a situation thinking that is how you are defined, and then having to kind of retool and figure out what you are all about, had a huge impact on me. fast forward i joined the usoc as general counsel in 1999. i got promoted quickly to run our sports group. we basically have a sports group and a marketing group. i ran the sports group for eight months, and that got promoted to deputy executive director. and then i got promoted to interim executive director while we did a search. i was strongly encouraged to stay. i did stay. at the end of that search process, they picked somebody else. and for reasons that are probably too long to go into now, i decided not to stay. that experience in college really helped me think through what i was going to do. i was a recovering lawyer, i practiced law for 20 plus years, but had been out of the practice of law for five years. it is tough to go back. it is tough to find clients again. it ended up being the best thing that could have ever happened to me. i got to go to los angeles and be the chief operating officer of a company called an chief entertainment group. we owned six professional soccer teams. i learned so much. my experience in college athletics is not at all unique. there are thousands of young athletes who have life-changing experiences, and you are better people, more successful people because of their participation in college sports. it is not just football players and basketball players. it is not just the gwen jorgensen's of the world who represent our country at the games. that is one of the reasons that americans love the olympic games so much. we love the americans. we love overcoming. we love seeing that american flag when we walk in to our schools and places of work. being american is a really important part of why we get so much support from the american public. the other reason we get so much support is because we are about much more than competition. we are about much more than winning and losing. it is about how we win, and how we lose. it is about being the best that we can be. one of my greatest mentors, in the sense that i read what he wrote and watched him speak, was john wood. he defines success as the peace of mind from knowing that you did the very best you could. it's about the joy found in efforts. it is that that makes us different from any other professional sport in the united states. but it is also that which makes us very similar to collegiate athletics. it is based on a value system. it is based on a balance of mind, body, and spirits. it is based on broadening's peoples experiences. it's why this relationship that we have with the ncaa institutions is so important to us. so what can we do to make that relationship better? since 2011, the usoc and our national governing bodies have partnered with the national association of collegiate directors of athletics. to create the u.s. olympic achievement award. that recognizes colleges and universities whose student athletes and coaches have won olympic medals. the u.s. olympic achievement award was a step in the right direction. we will continue to publicly recognize the importance of our success at the olympic games. but we needed to do more. can we do endowments for olympics sport coaches or scholarships. can we use the great olympic brand or the experience of our governing bodies to build revenue-generating properties with conferences and schools? and we allow colleges and universities to use their olympic identities and success to recruit athletes and coaches, and perhaps to build facilities? can our national governing bodies work with the ncaa to host conference championships and national championships in their sports? usa triathlon is already doing this. who knows, maybe she would have been number one much sooner if we had been able to do that. can we encourage nbc to promote the university backgrounds of our olympic teams? we believe that the united states needs to host the olympic games again. we haven't hosted the summer games since 1996. what that means is there is a whole generation of americans who haven't seen the olympic games on american soil. we believe that hosting be olympic games can inspire a whole generation of athletes who will attend the collegiate institutions. that doesn't mean we have made a final decision to bid, but we are very seriously considering it. we have four great cities, boston, los angeles, san francisco, and washington. we will make our decision probably by the end of january. maybe earlier than that. we have met one-on-one with a number of athletic directors from some of the schools that we depend upon the most. we talked about many of the ideas i just mentioned, things that we can do for them, for their schools, and for their programs, for their athletes, for their coaches. we also want to form a working group to look at opportunities that can benefit college sports across the board, and to jump start the discussion, we have a $5 million donor that is prepared to invest in the preservation of olympic sports at colleges. we need to have a conversation about the role we'd aged to play in creating a safe environment for sports. there is no agency, no commission today responsible for the safety and well-being of young athletes. our best estimates suggest that one in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused the time they are 18. and yes, it happens in sports, if not more than in society at large. the usoc board of directors unanimously supported the establishment of a new independent entity to create and sustain safe environments for sports. the usoc is investing $5 million for a pilot program in all of our ngb's collectively. we are trying to raise an additional $15 million to get this organization off the ground. we think there are enough people and organizations who believe in us, believe what we are trying to achieve here, that we are going to get it done. this entity will have two primary functions -- education and awareness on the one hand, and for olympic sports, investigation. one of the biggest challenges that we have is that some of our ngb's have limited budgets. with this independent entity, we will have the ability to provide the ability to provide that resource to them, so that we can do this. the usoc safe sport program will help raise awareness about misconduct, will promote open dialogue, and will provide training and resources. it is a big problem that nobody is addressing on a national level. we will try and fill that vacuum, but it is not cheap, and we would very much like to partner with as many of our college and university partners as we can. let me close by simply saying that i am grateful for the opportunity to be here today, and to tell you a little bit about the u.s. olympic committee, about team usa, and about why college sports really matter to us. the state of college sports in this great nation is in a state of great flux. you all, much more than i, know what direction that is likely to head. but if athletes like when -- jorgensen are going to continue to read the benefits of college athletics, and our country will enjoy it spotted the top of the podium, both on and off the field of play, and in board rooms and availability games, we have to support all of our student athletes and the programs that support them. there are immense challenges facing colleges. we understand there is not a single college administrator in the country that was to shut down an olympic sport program. we much appreciate the opportunity. [applause] >> you outlined the professional successes you had after not being elected to the ceo position of the usoc in 2001. what drove you to come back to the usoc after you lost that vote? >> i have to go back in time. i joined the usoc in 1999, it was the fall of 1998 when i realized the thing i liked best was going home and mowing the lawn on friday afternoon. i get home, i would look over my shoulder, and i could see i made the world better place. it was a small piece of the world, but it made me feel really good about the fact i had done something that was tangible and had improved some state of affairs somewhere. as a lawyer, i didn't often feel that way. when i was back practicing law in colorado in 2009, and i got the phone call asking if i would be interested in coming back, it was a dream come true. it was something i honestly never expected. i wasn't going to apply for the job. i had more or less assumed they had moved on from me. they had a lot of turnover. the more i got to see the impact of the 2004 reorganization on the usoc, the more i got to see the tremendous leadership that we get from our board of directors. we have a wonderful group of people. six people who are independent, and have no relationship to olympic sport. generally, three people elected by the national governing bodies, three people elected by active athletes. for the first time in the history of the usoc, coming to the table, trying to do what is in the best interest of the usoc and its athletes, as opposed to acting in the best interest of the constituency it happened to send them. i came back because i believe in the power of sport to make the world a better place. my lawn hadn't gotten any bigger, so i wasn't getting as much enjoyment from that as a used to. >> one more personal question before we go into some steps -- substantive questions. how is your life changed? >> lots of travel. it seems like a low-level to those of you who are directors of athletics. i'm an empty nester as of a year ago. the good news is, i can bring my wife. the most important change is the time i get to spend it training centers, seeing our young men and women, most of whom don't get the big dollars of professional athletes. they are there because they love competing. they really love representing their nation. it is just inspiring to be around them. >> you spoke about the importance of college boards programs. certain college athletes, specifically football players, generate millions of dollars for their schools. why shouldn't they receive a portion of that revenue? >> this is one it would have been good to have bob here. [laughter] bob knows the answer to that question, i'm not sure that i do. we think our athletes create great value, both monetarily and in terms of the inspiration in what they do. we also know that our colleges and universities have jobs that go way beyond athletics. i'm probably being overly noncontroversial here, but it is a complicated question. the people who should answer that question are the people who were involved in the business of college sport. we need college sport. we need to figure this out in a way that doesn't cause us to lose college sports on the olympic side. but i don't know what the answer is to that question. obviously, those athletes create a heck of a lot of value. i'm not sure that we have adequately answered the question about why don't we give them all that money, but why haven't we done more for them. >> if there is one thing you could change about the olympics for the 21st century, what would it be? >> that is a great question. i think the ioc's meeting in europe to talk about that question. they are talking about what changes do we want to make is a part of a project they call agenda 2020. if you look at how we select cities for the london games, -- for the olympic games, it is different from the way business would make that decision. it's a multibillion-dollar program, a multibillion dollar value. the selection is made based on whatever cities sign up to be host of the olympic games, and then there is a competition in a vote among those cities. it would be great if we could find a way to strategically make that selection in a way that helped build the olympic brand around the world. >> the united states has not hosted an olympics since the 2002 winter olympics in salt lake city. what would it take for the ioc to approve a us bid? >> based on our discussions with the ioc, they are very open to coming back to the united states. we have made a sincere effort to become much more active and engaged in the global olympic movement. we have tried to be at the table when decisions get made and contributions have to be made to various projects. i think the time is right for the u.s. to compete to host the olympic games. we want to make sure there is a compelling reason for the ioc to look at our bid and say that will make the world better. it will make the city that hosts the games better. it is so important that we not spend huge amounts of money that wouldn't otherwise be spent on the olympic games. it is one thing to spend it $10 billion on every structure, if you were going to spend $10 billion on infrastructure because it's in the city's best interest. because they need a new railroad, new streets, things like that. but we can't do is put ourselves in a situation with the citizens of any city are paying to host an event, and paying expenses that wouldn't otherwise be spent on their city anyways. for us, one of the greatest challenges is how do we make it affordable? and we make it a value-added proposition for the citizens of whichever city will host? >> here we are in washington d.c., and we have a few questions related to washington. what do you think of the d.c. 2024 bid? >> i think russ ramsey is doing a great job. i think this is an iconic american city, a city that represents our nation. i think our other three cities are equally as good. [laughter] >> you have touched on this in your remarks to an earlier question. why should d.c. residents want and pay for the 2014 olympics? >> i think the olympic games are especially important to us now, as we as a nation seem especially divided. i think the olympic games cross all religious lines, all political lines, all economic lines. they are about coming together to do something other than focus on your disagreements. it is something that focuses everybody's attention on what we have in common, as opposed to what makes us different. there is healthy competition, but is in the spirit of all of us, every country, every 204 countries that comes to compete, being the very best we can be and moving forward after that competition. i think the great benefit for any city hosting the games is that they can be a part, again of making the world a better place. be a part of something that is much bigger than just a sport or broadcast event. >> what are we doing to set ourselves apart as olympic hosts, compared to other countries? >> i think it is too early to be able to answer that one. we don't know if we are going to submit a bid to host 2024. we don't know who we will be competing against. we are at a phase now where we are just evaluating if this is the right thing for the united states, and if so, who should our bid city partner be. for us, i think one of the things that any city we would pick would offer is some reliability. access to great technology, access to great infrastructure. i think the united states has historically done a fantastic job of hosting the games. salt lake city, los angeles, lake placid, we have a rich history of doing it well. i think the ioc would look at the united states and feel comfortable that we would be able to do it in a way that would create a great experience for the fans, the athletes, for the guests, for the sponsors. >> the recent article in the atlantic monthly asked what if democracies refused to pay for the olympic games again? this was in response to the lack of enthusiasm in the parts of western nations to host the 2022 winter games. can you comment on this, and what the ioc can do to encourage bids? >> that's a fantastic question. if a democracy were to spend as much as sochi spent on the winter games, i think it would be a problem. we, as a democracy, have a responsibility to be fiscally responsible to our citizens. if we can't look at a pll for the olympic games that doesn't have an adverse effect on whatever city is hosting, we will make the decision not to host. when russia spends $51 billion, that sends a message that the games are expensive. but you have to remember, most of that was for bridges and roads and railroads, and venues that didn't exist. in most cases, associated with the united states bid, or a bid from a lot of other nations, those kind of expenditures won't be necessary. i think the ioc is headed in the right direction. by asking to focus everyone's attention on the facts that it costs 3 or $4 billion, plus whatever you need in the way of infrastructure that is otherwise good for your city. >> some of our questionnaires anticipated the flow of your comments. this is coming along in the order i wanted to make this a good discussion. many countries that the u.s. competes against receive direct and generous support from their governments. the united states does not. should the united states olympic committee received government funding? >> i think as time goes on, we are going to have to increase the amount of resources that we can make available to our athletes if we are going to stay competitive with china, russia, and others. i'm not at all convinced that the best route to that is government support. when i started in 2010, we were raising less than $1 million a year in major gift philanthropy. this year, we should be over $20 million in gross major gift philanthropy. that is the opportunity for us. we have to figure out a way to make americans realize that we are the only developed nation in the world that isn't funded by its government. if most americans realize that, we could substantially increase not only the major gift philanthropy, but gifts from americans who are able to give $25, to $100. that's the direction we want to go. we are not considering approaching the government to change the rule that has been in place. it is hard to say that we should. we won medal counts in every summer games since 1996. we are ok now. but we need to keep laser focused on how we increased those resources, and we are not for the time being going to the government. >> what do you think of the balance between professional and amature athletes in the olympics? should baseball be an olympic sport? >> the challenge that the ioc faced was that they wanted the athletes competing in the liver games to be the best athletes in the world. it doesn't make much sense, the value will be affected if the best athletes aren't competing. i understand where the ioc is on baseball, because the best players in the world are more focused on winning a world series title in they are on winning a medal. with that said, i think it is a great tragedy that women's softball that doesn't have a world series is not in the olympic games. we've been working to support women's softball in getting into the olympic games. the ioc is not sure that is the best move. they don't want to admin sports without women's sports, women's sports without men's sports. from the united states alone the committee standpoint, we would like to see women's softball in the games. they don't have the world series. they don't have that premier championship that young women athletes can aspire to after their ncaa championships. i think that is a great question, but i think the ioc has decided for the time being they want the best athletes in the world coming to the olympic games, not something else. in baseball, that wouldn't happened. >> a follow-up question. it points out you have been involved in the rescue of women's softball and wrestling as olympic sports. wrestling made it, softball did not. why do you think the olympics committee doesn't want to consider softball, and what are your thoughts about this? i realize you just touched on that, you may want to elaborate. >> i think the ioc does want to consider softball. in that context, they can only add one sport. they had to pick between wrestling and softball. and that was a difficult choice. i played squash for a long time. i would love to seize squash in the games. i would love to see women's softball. i can't imagine the games without wrestling. they need to ask themselves what can we do to continue to make the olympic games relevant to younger audiences. if you look at what happened in the winter games, they did a beautiful job when they added snowboarding. the ratings went up, interest went up, snowboarding is a big winter games now. how do we get skateboarding in? there are kids all over the world doing this. if we want to connect with the generations, we have to find ways that the sports they are active in are the sports that will be competed in the olympic games. >> after the controversy about outstic violence, you spoke about the charges filed against hope solo. the team, noon punishment levied against her as trial.its also michael phelps has pleaded d.u.i. and is suspended. are there any specific rules about punishing olympians charged with a crime? do you see a culture shift in it comess world when to violent behavior against athletes? lastt me answer your question first. i do see a culture shift. reason itr whatever doesn't seem acceptable just to say to wait and see what happens the trial. there seems to be more and more takeure on sports to action when an athlete is charged with a behavior as to when an athlete is found to have committed the behavior. iu probably know better than do what's driving that. but i know that a lot of our national governing bodies are feeling the pressure because in all truth so many of them aren't meaningful do investigations when an allegation of miss conduct is that's one of the
initiative is so important. it only covers one small slice of abuse, it covers ofeally important part abuse, one that needs to an dressed and we do need to bring to bear.urce on the hope solo situation and the michael phelps situation, you know, both of those cases ie pending and it would be think inappropriate for us to comment on what may have happened or what should happen we have a version of the facts that either has been party ord by a third that all of the parties have acknowledged. expect future repper kegses the the phelps? clauses haveal been part of those contracts for a long type. we have a code of conduct that we ask each much our athlete to sign and they do sign. the truth is that if you look at of london, they were almost without exception, incident, buty almost would you exception the american athletes comported way that made us all proud to be americans. so one of the things we're trying to do is focus the athlete's attention on it in opposed to after the fact. so we ask each of our athlete to participate in what we call an ambassadors program we gather them together for half a day with air their team, we have famous athletes come in and explain what a great opportunity this is for them to be an to help sell themselves and importantly how world tos in today's screw up and impair your long-term value. honestly believe that that program which is operated out of is invaluable in making our athletes think about consequences in advance. really haven't had any significant issues in the last few games, and knock on wood i we can keep doing that. how often does your law background come into play when promoting the olympic games or of the u.s. olympic committee? >> i have three kids, all of whom are either just out of clem or in college. talk about law school what i tell them is that i think law school is youendous, it teaches critical thinking skills that are unbelievably valuable to you i whyhout your life, and those, i don't know if you call them skills, but i use that way thinking in everything that i do. being a lawyer is different question than being able to take advantage of the gray training that you get in law school. grateful for that training, and i do use it all the time. >> are the olympics now drug-free? and does the united states do a better job of testing and oforcing that and the rest the world? >> i think our athletes get tested more, and more stringently than any other the world or certainly among the top 1% of athletes in the world. we externalized our direct testing. created around the year 2000. the usoc used to do it own drug testing, and adjudication, and what we realized is that we were fox guarding the then house. our job is to win medals and if also responsible for catching and adjudicating the cases against the dopers, interest.conflict of so we move it outside of our $200 million budget, more than every year of that goes to support the united states anti-doping agency. we're proud of the fact that we one of the strongest anti-doping regimes in the world. but the sport is not drug-free by any means at all. advantagers have an because they're thinking of new ways to cheat before we can think of new ways to test them cheating. so we have to continue continue vest and continue to do research, and it's very, very to us in the context where we're not just about the outcome, we're not just about we have ad losing, value system that under lies everything that we try to sell sponsors, our broadcast partner, our donors, and if we it willvest in that brand humid impact on our long-term. >> the 2022 world cup is being hottest reasonhe ons on earth, qatar, the middle east. causing concern over the health andoth the athletes construction workers building venues alike. how do you foresee global events like the olympics being affected by global climate change and conditions?her >> i think it's fantastic that we have a number of countries like qatar who are rising up and to invest their substantial resources in sport. i think that's a wonderful thing. i think we have to rely on the i.o.c. and the international federations to make sure that those investments are appropriate. and hopefully through the oversight of the i.o.c. and the fedderses when competitions are held in places it won't be at the expense of our athletes, because critically important. so we're very, very supportive of the, i guess the arrival at qatar.ty of places like but we are looking to the i.o.c. and the international federations to make sure that those competitions are held under conditions and circumstances that promote opposed to the opposite. >> a couple of marketing questions. how has new media affected the marketing of the olympic movement? >> the audience that people are to connect with is not people my age. forink the average viewer the sochi olympics was 50 years plus, average age. question for nbc and others is how do we make the olympics relevant to those younger audiences, and the media.is digital it's social media. so we've made an investment, engaged with face become and twitter. in it.eve i am not on face become, i don't do twitter. communications person doesn't let me, for very good reasons. be very relevant in that space, and i think i priority for nbc, and coming out of the vancouver they did some research and what they that people watching on digital media actually itanced their viewership, increased their numbers on television, it didn't hurt them. nbc is all in in this proposition too. question. the olympics have traditionally been a television only event. streaming on the internet is accelerating. what will be the media mix in future? >> i think it's going to be incumbent on us and incumbent on have the widest possible mix. at the end of the day different accessing through different platforms. what nbc wants, what any rights abilityould want is the to exploit their rights across all platforms. so personally i'm going to continue to watch on television when i'm not on the games. threeguarantee you my children will not. i think we have to make sure we have the widest possible access all platforms. >> and how do you think social media engagement will trif the country's bid for hosting a olympics? >> i think one of the most important factors that we look as we select a city is what kind of support does the bid have in their cities. and if they want the support of young people, they're not going in theble to get it traditional ways, they're not going to be able to get it through newspapers and television as much. a lot of it will be driven by social media. so all four of our big cities are thinking through what is our social media plan going to be, media plan had have a great deal to do with their ability to demonstrate to their city really wants to host the games in the united states. to have anng extremely important impact on our assessment of what kind of does each oft these cities have. >> when you walk into your office at the usoc, what is usually your main goal for the day? funny, that's changed since i first started in 1999. in 1999lly started work three days after the salt lake bid scandal erupted. so i got to work on that commission with senator mitchell and don fear. it was a lot of crisis management. when i started in 2010, it was all about vancouver two weeks.st i started about a week before the vancouver games. glorioussly had a success there. but when i got back we were facing some really serious issues with the i.o.c. and we began our revenue sharing we again trying to rebuild those international relationships. now, it feels like we're on a fairly stable course, we're directionthe right and we have the opportunity to morere opportunistic and strategic, as opposed to trying to put our finker in the dike, trying to figure out how can we create more resources to support our athletes. are able to support about one half of the national team athletes in the united states. you take our 48 national governing body, there are young and women who were good enough to be on their sports national team who are not receiving support from us. and the athletes who get support than $2,000 ass month from us on average. so it's really not even enough on.ive so our job now is to figure out how can we be creative and enhancing the resources that we can make available to our athlete so we can fund all of national team members. >> we're leading up to the of this, i must say, very informative q and a session, preceded by your remarks. so a general question, what are the major priorities for the committee through 2020 and how is the organization them?ng >> so i would say we have a of overriding priorities. one is continue to build on our major gift program. we started a new foundation last year, it was called the united olympic and paralympic foundation. a yearaising $20 million now in gross major gifts. plusould be at $50 million at some point in the future. we have to continue building that out. a priority.learly hostng a way that we can the olympic games on u.s. soil is a priority. we're not going to do it if it economic sense, but we're going to work really really hard to find a way that sense. make economic safe sport is a priority for us. we've got to get this done, we've got to raise this money, we've got to launch this pilot program. andathlete careers education, transition of their a fourthis i would say priority for us. so many of our athletes leave system in their my 20's and late 20's because they want to get going with the rest of their they're not actively engaged in considering what am i going to do after i compete. more meaningful programmings for them where they're looking at education and career decisions in their teens and 20's while they're still competing so they can compete with the confidence that they have, a much better sense than do now about what they're going to be doing with the rest of their lives, i think it would immensely. >> thank you so much. time. almost out of before asking the last question we have a couple housekeeping matters to take care of. like to remind you about an upcoming luncheon on november 7, with robert mcdonald, the secretary of veterans affairs. next, i'd like to present our traditional national press club mug to our guest, and it is, as laborioned to the secretary yesterday, who is rumored to be maybe moving confirmed,though not but this is light enough that you can easily pack it in your bag or travel with it around the world. name of the national press club. >> thank you very much. [applause] last question, what is your favorite olympic sport, and why? >> i have so many. let me tell you about some great olympic moments. one of my favorite moments, my with mes a little angry at times when i say this, but when derek remonths father came the track, i think during the barcelona games, he pulled a about 100-yard to go and he fell down and his dad came out of the stand and helped line.ross the finish it's moments like that that make you realize it's not the it's the trying, that really matters. so you think about that, you think about lake placid in 1980 and those young men that won underold medal unbelievable circumstances. you look at the great performances over time much our like carl lewis, there are so many, many things that to be so grateful for having what i think is the best job in the united states of america. i get to see these young men and women almost every day, i get to do what they do, they're very humble. they're not in it for anything be thehan a desire to best that they can be. so a lot of those moments are me just every day on the job. i can't thank you all enough for here, it was a real pleasure. thank you. [applause] for comingu all today. i'd also like to thank national club staff including the journalism institute and broadcast center for helping to today's and facilitate event. finally here's a final remind they're you can find more information about the national press club on our website. if you'd like a copy much today's program, please check our website at press.org. thank you all, thank you very much. adjourned. >> on the next "washington journal," the former chief of terrencecapitol police gaynor on the shooting at the capital. is ahow health care campaign issue. "washington journal" is live at .:00 a.m. ear on c-span >> be part of c-span's campaign 2014 coverage. us on twitter, and like us on facebook. to get debate schedules, video of key moments, debate previews from our politics team, over 100 bringing you senate, house and governor debates. and you can instantly share your candidateso what the are saying. the battle for control of congress, stay in touch and us on by following twitter. and liking us on facebook. the big 12 from conference forum held on tuesday. c.e.o.ympic committee scott blackmun is joined by journalists, college administrators and athletic directors for a discussion about money in college sports and how that money is spent. this is an hour and a half. >> good afternoon. i'm jimmy robert, thank you for joining us here in wowed, online well. c-span as the numbers in college sports are staggering. easily be something we're talking in terms of points gained, or any one of a number of things that are measured quantitatively. attendance, participation. and money. therding to file wtion department of education, in 2011 the most recent year for which available, are college sports combined to generate more than $12.6 billion. year the university of texas alone took in more than $165 million. espn is paying in excess of $600 million a year to televise new college football playoff system, over the next 0 years. the price tag -- 10 years. the price tag for the ncaa basketball tournament, march and cbs paye warner $10.8 billion for a 14-year deal. said, athletic departments at many schools and in fact most schools operate in the red. and the star player on the thepionship team that won men's basketball tournament last year said that some night he bed hungry. so where does the money go? seem to be more of it than there ever has been before. everyone degrees that its distribution has been wise or equitable. parseith us today to help the issues are a handful of men with significant knowledge and regarding the most visible sports in our culture, and how they are run. berkowitz is a sports project reporter information u.s.a. today specializing in andrprise stories investigations. he is also dedicated a considerable amount of time to compiling the newspapers college sports compensation and finance base. patrick sandusky, the chief communications and public affairs officer for the united states olympic committee, he is a former college athlete, an offensive lineman at northern illinois. chris del conte is the director of athletics at tcu, since 2009.r of steve patterson is the men's athletic director at the university of texas, he was the same position at arizona state and spent more than two decade in professional among other roles he was general manager of both the houston rockets and portland trailblazers of the nba. senior write for sports illustrated, he preafl worked for the "new york times" where for ark was nominated pulitzer prize. big 12 commissioner bob bolsby plannedded to be with us today, but he's home recuperating from surgery so we the best.sh him all opinions ebbs pressed here today are those of the panelists and do not represent the organizations with which they are associated. ofarly this is a time tremendous upheaval in sports. a regional director of the ruledal labor rests board this year that northwestern's football players should be allowed to form a union. ncaa was found in august to be in violation of antitrust law by the formerught player.ketball that was only a day after the conferencesg five broke away from the rest of the ncaa. the common neil in all of these items is -- the common theme in all of these money. i want to start with the two men on the panel charged with the overseeingity of programs at universities. how does the commerce of college werts now change, why don't start with you, steve. >> i don't know that it really theged all that much over years. for a long time schools have competed. it's a part of the american culture. tore have been movements regulate that, going back more than 100 years. greaterwhat we see are student services, greater facilities, bigger staffs than in the past. the reality is we want to provide the best student the bestwe can to have outcomes for our student athlete that we possibly can and that takes a lot of resources. so to generate those resources you have to have media contracts it and have to celtic raise a lot of money and sell a lot of merchandise and all the other things that provide those revenues to provide those services. >> chris? steveoncur with what said. you look at it from the evolution of college athletics, time of the ncaa men'sformed in 1927 was athletics. it's created parity in football. you think about the popularity today, used to have unlimited scholarships back in to day, and it went to 110, 95 and today it's 85. tcu, baylor, nontraditional powers have relevant. and the popularity of college athletics and in football in particular is second to none. yet we are running a business on peoples passion. and says i have two revenue streams, i must produce or support 20 sports, based on the student body population. the evolution has changed, commerce has changed doctorsity cloudy. clean athletics has we --d and the idea that our are we providing for student athletes, it's beyond the handshake. it's not a five-year decision, decision.year the demands of winning, the demands of providing ton for ever greater.re so it's always evolving. guess what i really meant, though, was given what's happened within the last years specifically within the last few months, the prospect of foresee business being done any differently given o'ban nondecision, a possibility that your model may change? >> different question. yeah. collegeg you know about athletics is it's ever changing. no doubt about it. believe that a student athlete should receive full cost do.ttendance, absolutely, i when you start to think about the ramificationings of the o'bannoncase, that will put tremendous pressure on college because forartments us at tcu, getting to the big 12 our largestat, but doan more has been the institution. found money actually goes back to the university to thatn our burden on institution, and programs are talking about becoming self it sayent, i look at and we're part and parcel of an institution. hadcu seven closer ago we 7,000 applicants for 1600 spots. the success of our athletic and the rise of tcu going to the rose bowl, we're those same0,000 for 1600 spots. and we're only talking about women's and men's basketball and football. how does that affect title 9. you can see we're going to provide opportunities for two sports, hell has no fear like a woman scorned. i have two daughters, pay the baby, so how do you do that. we have to realize that this is not free for everybody and we're prepared to do that. >> steve, you have spent a of timeable amount covering college sports, and the numbers. cost ofou see the attendance changing and affecting the way colleges and athleticies in their departments do business? >> it's going to be an interesting thing for how this,s manage to do whether or not they're going to discontinuing the efforts to raise more money through commercial enterprises or whether or not this is going to thing that of perhaps better justifies institutional involvement in supporting college athletics programs. been toward making athletic programs self sufficient. it seems to me that this is almost created a itpetual motion machine, resulted in increased pressure to increase revenue. turn result in the situation that we have so much thenue being generated that general public, people who are lawyers, judges, who are looking at this and going like wow, so so much money being generated here that something more needs to be done for the athlete. where the athletes are entitled to compensation for the way they are participating in the generation of that money. so it creates interesting questions as to how colleges want to deal with this and whether or not the impact will be to continue to put a further perpetuate this. >> patrick, chris mentioned the impact on title 9. earliers in here speaking about olympic sports. thei guess you could ask same question about what's going to become of the olympic sports, sports.ue >> you mentioned that tight 9 was the greatest thing that clean athletics, it's the greatest thing that happened to the united states team.c if you look at the london games, the women of team u.s.a. were wouldown country they have finished third in the medal count. so the u.s. olympic team benefited immensely by our in --e of inclusion of women. i dare say if we're not the best sport, i of women in don't think there's anybody who can say they're better than us. harshr, there is also a reality, the stresses that athletic programs could come under. scott said earlier, and this was the sameim and i at time, that nobody in these two gentlemen's situations ever lost job because the poor performance of their olympic sport program. of reality.fact people pay attention to basketball, they pay attention metrics of, and the which they get their donors and their fun raising done and their sponsorships and the tv ratings, that's are what drive it. so for us there are a lot of implications that could negatively impact it by not supporting programs. before we got to this position of increasing the cost for the universities for their student athletes, we look at how many wrestling programs around country have shrunk over the years, the number of jip mass. ticks program that have shrunk to get that balance. so make no doubt about it that olympic sport programs are more soy under threat, now than they ever have been. >> pete, the topic of this panel supposed to be about money much where does the money go? it's certainly a big issue in terms of the number of things that have been in the news. suspended from the university of georgia for autograph.elling his should a player be allowed to likeness?wn >> i think it a great question, and it's a very complicated question. because the way i usually cover college sport fridays the bottom up and everything happens in recruiting. you get good through recruiting, and that's where a majority of the corruption happens. in high school, on the academic side, through boost concerts what not. a black market in college football, it exists now, you occasionally get glimpses into it, in basketball it fueled football it's fueled through booster clubs and other ways. it's just its own little beast that happens. have you a billion there are predicated essentially on free labor, and this exists to fuel the billion dollar beast. so that said, i think everyone is happy the way it's working now, with that black market existing in the shadows as it does. to allow people to use their likeness to make which concept actually is very easy, oh yeah, we used be able to make money on the autograph, i think it owes pandora's box. if you can make money off your autograph, how much and where okay, i'm going to sign with alabama, there's autographe an business set up, so when you sign with them you can automatically get this much. talk aboutn people paying players there are so many unintended consequences, for who haven't sat on the baseline and watched how it i don't think they understand how tricky that is. did you onlyup, pay basketball and football. do swimming athlete get paid for their autographs? everything is just going to of problem.kind like 10 years ago football safes 17, 18 guys, now they have 45. everyone is looking for an edge loophole opens in terms of the autograph type stuff and in of the likeness stuff, which is hard to disagree with, but in the reality and could getn of it, it very tricky and even, we see look autograph guys, just like kind of your scum of the earth guys trying to make money then tell them on the back end, it would just open doors, think.ary so it's something that i think once you get the full cost of attendance, once you go past that marker, it gets really complicated. which we saw with the way judge sort of said when she set up in this complicated behind the o'bannondecision, i think there is some sensitivity about that these nextmakes , the caseawsuits involving martin jenkins, the player who is represented by jeff kessler, these cases which potentially could cost the schools a lot of money in retroactive differential between cost of andndance and grant and aid what the future would be with the ability of athletes potentially to demand whatever can get. becomes like a really big deal. i think that's why the judge is trying to create something that somewhere in between. tos a really difficult issue balance. and the lawyers who litigate that case even now are trying to what the judger meant in certain ways, the way the injunction were set up. >> steve patterson, how do we what cost of attendance is, isn't that at the heart of this? >> there is a model that the government prescribes, i with say on every campus, and i've sat through a number of meetings of it's calculated differently everywhere. like our school it looks maybe full cost of attendance might be as cost as four or year. more a >> per athlete? >> per athlete. in our schools conference, even in the same state, they don't have the same number. that's notalculation easy to come to across all the campuses. but i want to go back to something that was said earlier. at the end of the day there's this misperception that the free in college athletics and that's not accurate. if you're a full ride football player at the university of texas, the benefit you get from room, board, books, tuition, training, peoples, fees and medical is $69,000 a year. tax-free. so you add the taxes on that that puts you at the top third in theehold incomes united states. if you're a basketball player at the university of texas it's year, which you add the tops to put you in quartile. don't think student at leiths are being taken advantage of when they're in the top quartile of income in the united states. >> tutoring, networking, alum any. of that nature, things that benefited me in my career, frankly, i was a backup on a really bad team, so i had else to do,thing and i realized that quickly. but the program itself was there to succeed, to have the tutors, to have the coaching specialization, to do the networking and it's still a network that i rely on today nearly 20 years later. so i do think it's hard to costs.y some of those i believe as a former athlete that by looking at me clearly bed hungry, and i was well fed throughout my time there, still am. but you really get an opportunity to really do more than just play football. than, you get an enhanced student experience, i the normalnd what student gets and i don't know how you put a dollar on that, was incredibly valuable. >> completely on the wrong side of this as a cynical journalist, i'll back steve's point on this. agoid a study several years and tried to look at the value men's basketball scholarship and we came out to a $120,000at's closer to a year when you fold in all the other things. and trying to place a value on support and there are other things that do have actual val thaw you can tally to the free admissions games, and other types of things that people don't really think about. owe. >> if you subtract 6:00 a.m. break?es during spring i with definitely take that out of it. thanu know this way better i do, but in terms of demands placed on the athletes, that's i think some of this, where the friction begins to in. some stuff that came to light in the hearing, and some of the thef we heard in o'bannoncase and that testimony the athletes do what they feel they have to do, forced to and thepected to do, nature of that tradeoff. andhow all of that works, the nature of the pressures that are and the demand placed on the athlete in relation to the amount of money that's being what they'reed on doing. >> i agree with steve patterson down the i led him road to counter that by saying free labor. a year ond 200 days the road, i'll on different campuses. to behungry narrative is one of the all-time false narratives. the week after the final four i had five different coaches and and likeators call me if he's going to behungry, he took miss money and blew it on jordans. you really pare down the math what was these guys do, there is going to bed's hungry, it's his own fault, toically, is what from coast coast people told me. i spent a week behind the scenes at mississippi state doing an all access for sports illustrated two weeks ago, and let me tell you, i gained five being in their building. these guys come off the feel, they have like shakes to theirlly made flavor, taste, wait gain, loss, whatever, they go into the practice facility, there's a snack bar. some of it is because that rule changed, and the rule change in part -- good, by the way. these athletes should be fed. if there's one thing they should limit, it's feeding athletes and taking care of the athletes, medical care, those rights. >> and those things are changing? >> yes, they are and it's a thing. i don't think you'll get anyone in ask around college sports to disagree that these athletes be taken care of to the fullest. behungry anding to somebody else made a headline, i think that's completely and just a false be it misuse of what they're given if they've got to that point. narrativei this though, that said, probably has it is theto do with fact that the establishment is making millions and millions of and in essence there are kids in many cases who come from nothing who have got their noses pressed up against the window saying where's mine. fair?t --you think about of the g.i.ide bill, college athletics provides largest need based merit aid in the united states. i came and a children's home in mexico.w my outlet was sport. i got a scal larship to go to oregon state. year they dropped the sport because they said we -- and dropped men's track field. luckily u.c. santa barbara opportunity. i got a fifth year decision because of sport. my life's deindication is giving back to sport, providing for young people to get a degree and change the world. graduate we had 85 did from texas christian university. pro.one went only one went pro. think about all those other kids that will go onto do phenomenal things, yet we focus on napier have enough munchies. if you know what we give them, holy cow. a full ride to go to school, to make a decision, and a lot times those kids are kids, never had an opportunity to do something. from texass extra last year, took five and a half years to graduate. four.ot done playing in we continued on their education degree.ey got their we don't talk about those stories. a lot of what's happening today lost lost our voice, we our voice to say what are we providing college athletics, headed.e we and we look at all this money over here and you look at the 523 athletes that we have on our campus and what they're doing throughout their lives and that's part of the problem. the few that got their nose pressed against the window are not talking to the masses. come to my campus, you say are you getting a raw deal, sir.say no i can believe i'm at tcu, i cannot believe i had this can't thank you enough. >> the guys who have the renoun and are doing things that create most of the revenue that support a lot of the other athletes were also in guys whose 50 years decision after they get somewith school results in tough circumstances for these guys, whether or not it's forcal, whether or not whatever reason they didn't get tocations that enable them get jobs that are useful or gainful. a couple years ago that talked about and clustering in programs where we had guys who talked to us about getting degrees that in them not being qualified to do something lives.ful in their so i think there's a flip side i understand, and that on a broader basis that of people who are in sports outside of football and basketball, wills basketball, who would tell you, man, this is the greatest thing. >> that's a cynical view though, your job. my job is to tell you it's half full. you wake up, half empty. my cup is overflowing with college athletics. necessarilyhink that somebody ask -- >> no, but what i'm saying is from a critique point of what a will be, i'm a soshology major. it was a phenomenal major for me. now someone could be a criminal justice major or whatever they may be in or social sciences. i'm not, especially at tcu, there's not a major you can hide in. so we're a little bit different. that still look at that, opportunity for that one individual to leave their place and go to school and get be, are degree it may they better off than where they were? that's the key question. they better off than where they and were can they go on to become productive members of society. i think i read that 27% of the united states population has a college degree. 27%, 28%? is that so? think aboutt area, that. 72% of the united states population does not have a college degree. does that individual, for he may get, is he better off than not having that degree? >> i go back and i remember being a freshman, offensive line meeting, coach dave asked us to beur majors were going and i said i was going to major in english. son?id excuse me, i said english, you sure you got that right? yeah.said all right then, better not get any bad grades. i think i'll be all right, copy, thanks for asking. but there were guys that mailed in in academically, without a doubt, and there were guys that engineeringt degrees and business degrees, and got 0.0 grade averages and got out of school. saw the whole gamut of that, and you are given at least the opportunity. and i know there's a lot. reasons why or why not people choose or don't choose, i'm not trying trying to say that everyone has the same situation. but while that can happen, there's also opportunity for the athletes as well. the generalt seeing competitiveness at american colleges and universitieses just high.g at an all time i saw a statistic at a major football college that the senior class that's graduating now, a third of them wouldn't get in as now.men so you have the admissions competition being as tough as ever, but the football team is on a plane here and here. why you're seeing the stuff at notre dame and other places. i think it's incumbent on the lot these places have million dollar centers, but that gap is not getting any smaller. it's going to be harder to get into school and if you want to be competitive in major college football you'll still need to get to qualify. lot more create a situations than we've seen now, at the places who are actually indicating the kids, who aren't just putting them in i believe studies and pushing them through. that have a little academic soul, and you can debate how many do and don't, kids failingto see and you're going to see the pressure, kids cheat, kid do different things. i think that's inherent to the situation. you have 850s.a.t. in the room with 1400s.a.t. kids, they don't fit. so that's one of the problems we see on the bottom line. >> you don hear athletic saying they should be allowed to major in football. you go to school for dance, you dance.n you go to school for are, you major in art. football,school for they want to know why you're putting them in organizational studies. that anybody here is an others al studies major. advocating actually for them to be part of the students experience, and to your graduates one went pro, you're not saying guys this of yourt be part routine. i give them a lot of credit, not away with classes or making all the classes specific to your sport. steve -- >> it easy to have the discussion revolve around the less than 1% of student athlete that can go onto be pros. even if they go onto the pros an average career of less than four years much they then have to figure out how to years on average after that. of texas, one of the top three baseball programs in the country, we average less stoot athlete a year in the majoro play leagues. the years we average about three, maybe four that get roster. to be on an nfl so out of the 500 plus kid that campus everyour year, there might be a couple, three four five that go onto play. our job is to man positive outcomes for our student athletes. folks come in with all kind of minimums now,have we do have core courses that are required. don talke things we about here is the problems in up to --ate leading the problems in education leading up to college. you compare us to other countries in the planet we're in doing a, so we're not great job there, frankly. so you're right. as the g.p.a. and a.c. s.a.t. scores go up, i cone get into the university of texas today. there twice, graduated twice. my son is there, my daughter. in today. get that's what's going on at universities awe over america. >> what i wanted to get to before was how do you manage that. administratorsas now? >> we make sure that we hire the right kind of people that can provide the kind of services to our student athlete, whether it's academic support, we spend more money than any other country inin the academic support. we make sure we got one on one getort, we make sure they through and stay on track to gr on time if they can. we provide services for them to come back if they don't gr on time, say they're a baseball want to tryay tan to make it after their third year, they can come back and finish their degrees. and we make sure we have career counsel l for them when they the place, we make if they get injured we provide medical twoices for them, up to years after they leave the yfort to make sure they're healthy. so we provide these kind of sure we managee positive outcomes for our student athletes. left out pepu talks. reality is we laugh about it something like a matthew mcconaughey, it's oftentimes much more important than a like red meet somebody mccombs who is a great entrepreneur and can help kid foster their careers. that's the kind of thing you getioned earlier that you at universities, you get those kind of tools and meet those and go on with your .areer chris, you wanted to add something? >> no. ncaa?we need the >> you need something. it always amused me that the idea of these schools are going brick away from the ncaa, to which i respond what are they is inevitablyhere going to be some type of a structure, i think, that schools you create ad once structure the whole thing is geared around the idea of keepbody trying to everybody else from cheating or doing something to get an else.age over somebody and so whether it under the nca's office or some other we haven't thought of a name of, seems like there's sort of be some underlying governance, something the enterprise together. ncaa, the institutionings make up the ncaa. a great job for us in terms of academic reform, the what we're all about. really started out with safety time. happened, that have we've needed them and they've been great for us, but we've done a poor job of talking about we feed the ncaa, when they do for us. leadershipm up, our is on the board of directors. of our -- .hey're a necessity conferences really took power, tvyou will, when the contracts, in '83, and the said football. college football is not part of ncaa. it's eligibility and compliance, that is it. football is outside and conferences are taken over that realm. left was a void that was through the antitrust of television way back when. now we're put in a position we have two different entities, the college football over here and ncaa. they're still governed by us as members. and today we're looking at the of it which is big numbers. and if we would have been back, want to say, in 1985 they talked about adding the cost of membership.o the we had to go to full cost of attendance, and our membership agree.t the -- at the time we were division two. two and were going to division one at the time, we had the same legislative power had.u.s.c. schools.wo different but you're asking them to vote on a bill about the cost of attendance. agree on it now. >> that seems like a perfect into anity to transition discussion with the big five and we're goingel that to see. so the college football national championship, we mentioned it and i'm not sure if i've got the numbers exactly right, i it ways over $600 million a year from espn. going forward with this big five model, how is that the economicst with big pieces like this television contract for the football playoff, and for march madness. future world going to look like for your schools and like the onechools that you used to work for, san luis oh business -- obispo. been in five conferences in 16 years. here like nomads. the southwest conference broke up and at that time we did to get backe could in the big 12. that was our goal. we hit a perfect storm, we hired a chancellor that has a vision that's second to none, we hired a football coach that we're 1-11 to the rose bowl, our we're in. grown, and and that is fantastic. yet it is daunting, because i we got in, boy, it calm.be there's more turbulence now than ever. they're saying hey, what about us, i was just there a year ago. understood their plight. faculty wantsour to be harvard monday through friday. christian, on sunday. and i suffer from adult a.d.d., cannot serve all three masters well, but think about that. and you're running a business based on people's passion. >> what do you say to a school which is a state highly competitive football program, but now is on the looking in? >> for the next -- our television revenues for the college playoff went up a little less than double. schools -- >> big five. >> yes. more resourced conferences it went up a little less than double. that next bunch of five conferences, their tv refuse up five times what they were before, so they've caught up in terms of the amount revenue. >> percentage or dollars? less money tolot get five times, $10,000, than it you have $200 million. 200 million. that may or may not be a val i way of looking at it. i'm not disputing that there's more money there for everybody. but, you know, the impact of that and how much more there is outside and how those schools then make up that gap, i think is going to be an interesting question. they're better off today than they were before. >> i think the gap has always and this power five branding is just perpetuated the perception a little more. financial gap has always been huge, and while i do have because those power five recruiting lines are going to have to fight. they were have notes two years ago. they just weren't quite at the fined as have notes. what i'm saying is i think they've actually done a poor job in the football playoff if letting somebody know if a boise is a 3-0, they can still get in and again i'm not going to say that doubled the access, but the whole point is their lot in life is pretty similar now. what they're fighting more is perception. and i agree with steve that you can parse numbers and say five times as much. it's easy to be cynical about that kind of stuff. but at the end of the day they're about where they were before. >> they're going to get more difficult over time for that gap to be overcome. the gap that's occurring now between texas' budgeting and other schools in the fbs or within division one, every year that gap grows wider. does that mean it's impossible for savannah state to be able to compete on any level? maybe yes, maybe no. there have been teams that have done some pretty cool things. and how those -- and for sure all those opportunities will be there. it's -- i happen to think and there are a lot of people who have bet a lot of money who are really smart business men that at the moment believe it or not are actually still underleveraged as business propositions. companies like i.m.g. are gering a lot of money that those businesses are underleveraged. people running i.m.g. are not in the business to lose money. they're paying these schools a lot of money thinking that they will then be able to commercially recoup that get get a lot more money. how does that cycle continue to go and what is going to be the impact i think is a really i want resting question. >> if you look from us -- and i have a unique perspective of where we were in terms of the economics. >> where would you rather be? >> of course. steve just told you how great life is at fresno state. would you rather be in the mountain west or big 12? >> you look at from this perspective though. economically when i was in the mountain west conference and things were happening to the place where we are today, one is perception. two, the big boys. but i was the new york nanchingees of the conference. we had the biggest budget, we won, we were it. today i'm in the big 12, i have the lowest budget. there's a huge gap. the economics within the 64 are still great. but we're in a position now where we wanted to be from our particular institution in the big 12. that was the biggest, and best conference in our region. it made sense. we were breath ren we have been playing texas since 1900. we lost last week to bay legislator. but the idea we have been playing these schools for a long time. and when the conference shifts we're now playing san diego state, they have no regional draw to us. yet the television, the american eye ball has determined that these five conferences drive all the traffic. think about that. they drive the traffic. we're a little bit david and goliath. that was a one-off. the terms on any given saturday look at the ratings who is driving that traffic. and if you're a school running a school, an athletic program based on people's passion and wanting to do what's right for your institution, for us to get in the big 12 is the right move for what we wanted. for our president, for our student body, everyone who wanted this, i can look gack and media will back at this. and media will say, there's only two schools that made it into the power 64, if you will. us and utah. that is it. it's an interesting dynamic when you think about our breath ren going, where would you rather be? every one would rather be in the big 12 today. >> those institutions deciding what kind of investment, how much they want to invest. it could be from the school, it could be from the alumns, it could be from other donors. from the student body. from businesses. you know, northwestern is not a big school, tcu is not a big school. we're going to have a heck of a battle on thanksgiving. i don't know whose going to win. but if the schools want to create an environment over whose going to invest in athletics because they perceive there's a value for the university they can decide to make that investment. what they can't do is not make that investment sit on the outside and criticize the system. there's a lot of schools who have made the decision we are not going to invest. and some of the most successful universities in the country. the ivy league is not going to dry up and blow away. chicago hasn't disappeared. so it's a matter of where you want to make your investment. >> what does the future look like then for the schools who choose not to make the investment that the 64 making? >> i don't think they're going to be in a position to take advantage of the eye ball that is chris is talking about to drive the interest in their university the same way the schools are that he decided to make that iniestment of >>. >> that's a chicken or egg discussion. >> no, no. >> but how am i supposed to make that happen? student fees? do we take institutional money and drive more of that into the program? those are the kinds of questions that schools, they start to grapple with. are you going to ask the government of the state to do this? you look at the program in hawaii -- i realize that is an outliar program on a variety of levels. that program is facing unbelieveably difficult choices. and there are state legislators in that state who felt the solution is that the state government ought to help support the athletics program there. and you can debate that on a public policy level and whether or not that's a good investment by the state of hawaii or whether it isn't, but there are a lot of these decisions that get made that create financial situations for people who don't have a say in it. for example, on a student fee basis. whether or not the fee structure for university for students ought to be driven by those kinds of conversations. you know, i think that raises some really atlanta questions. >> it's getting a little too either/or. of course they wanted to get back into the big 12. that's where their roots were from. we can trade notes later for thanksgiving. the fact of the matter is when you look at my school they left the mac thinking they were going to do bigger and better things. they went independent and then they traveled through the midwest. they came back to the reality that the mac was the perfect fit and they wanted to focus on being part of a strong mid-tier conference. it fit. they've been focusing on that as a school and one of the downsides is that a school that size don't have the robust programming of sports beyond to the number of levels let's say texas or texas christian does. but they did feel comfortable that was where they wanted to be as a school and they've been pretty successful in terms of winning football games and being part of what felt right for their brand and for their university. they don't have ambitions to be the next big 12 expansion school or part of the big 10. so i don't know if every school is trying to be in or out. >> to steve's pointed in terms of an investment. i was at rice university athletic director from 2006-2009 and i remember being interviewed. this is my fifth-year anniversary. they asked me two questions. can you raise money for a football stadium and can you get us into a bc conference? now, i will agree to anything. whatever you say. why do you want to do that? because you in this room are going to build that football stadium. that football stadium is $164 million raised. no debt. donors decided this is what we are going to do. >> if you have the donor base and you can do that. >> but this is just my story. this is our story. we had six people who gave us $15 million each and i referred to we nickle and dimed 1, 2, 5 million. >> a lot of nickles and dimes. >> yes, sir. a you've got to love oil. but the idea was this is way before the big 12 -- we were in the mountain west conference. we were heading to boise in the festival. this is the ambition of what we needed to do. that was so awe inspiring to have a board with this auddashese goal was fantastic. but donors, not knowing what lied at the end of the tenl. we dipped our toe for a month and that went out we were fortunate to get in the big 123. but the same thing we're building a new basketball arena donor funded. and our chance lors challenged, is the athletic program will not be an incumbrence. we will raise that money. that is a choice. our donors have really inspired and grappled with. it's been fantastic. and the university now has a $30 million gift for a business college. donors say we're a great institution. but they've made that investment. that was their all-goal. i can't speak for others but that was the university our size. >> that's great. it's -- that speaks well to the donors, to the universities, coto your ability to convince those people do donate. but you look at a school like university of california which just has dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into their facilities and some of that was simply they had to seismically retro fit a football stadium built over a major earthquake fault. so there's a serp amount you've got to deal with. but the way that kind of fipancing works is a different setup than you're talking about and where that money comes from. and the california athletics department has a model that works for it great now. but if it doesn't and something craters where is that money coming from? is that coming from the state? from the students? what kind of impact is that going to have ond bond rating for that university? and the downstream impact and the bills they're having to do all that stuff. i think to me again, as you look down the road those are the kinds of questions that i think -- you guys have having to deal with and administrators areville to deal with and students are to some extent have a voice in and to some extent as customers of the universities are having foisted upon them in order to do that. >> that's not true. >> how many -- >> wait. the department of education said you can't do that any longer. at the university of texas we had to go market to our students what's now the big ticket at tufert of texas that replaced what used to be called the bed tax that everybody had to pay and we wound up with a better revenues, more students buying them, and better product for the students because we had to ask them what they wanted and go sell to them. so it's not fair to say you're imposing something on the student body. the reason cal had to replace their football stadium is because their board of riegets said you have to fix it now. and it was a difficult construction projuct. out of the 300 million they spent they spent about 175 million doing seismic which got them no revenue. they could have potentially made a different decision. they could have said maybe we'll go play with the 49ers, with the raiders play. we're not going to have football any more. they made the decision to keep and fix it. that's their decision. >> i'm not disagreeing that's their decision but there are implications and situations ere students have a very moderate -- a small voice in whether or not, for example, student fee increase is incomb posed, where those decisions are made at the governing board level. >> i think you're misinformed on that. they have to go to a vote. student body votes on that. >> that's not true. there are state institutions where the fee structures at schools are decided on by governing boards. there may be student representatives on those governing boards but that's going to be one vote. or perhaps there are different vehicles for students to do things. but i think there have been plenty of instances where these kinds of fee increases have occurred where -- and there is no perfect way. ,000 an't canvas 75 students and make a decision. >> i think everyication is different. from our perspective we're only talking about where we are today. we have chosen to be great in all endeavors. if you look at recruiting a faculty -- and i use this all the time. if we're going to recruit the great chemists and students, we can't use 1950 bunsen burners. you have to evolve. you have to build, you have to recruit the finest students. at tcu we're trying to compete with texas, harvard, yale, princeton for the finest students in the country to come. big businesses -- colleges and universities are big business. where is my little johnny going to school? we had a chance legislator -- chance already we were not ranked academically. today we are ranked 72nd in the country. we're recruiting some of the finest kids to come to our campus. but you have to invest in chemistry, physics. and we don't talk about that part of the business. we focus on another letsics ecause between 3 -- athletics. we make up 90% of the media but we're only 3% of the entire budget in some cases maybe 10. but the focus is a small focus when you look at the totality of what a university business is. we focus on that little piece. >> so we've established the fact that you're on one side of the fence or the other. what's the ante if you want to be on the side of the fence with the haves and not the have nots? you've been on the other side? >> i couldn't tell you that because you start to look at one of the things for us when this whole thing was a geography we were in the right spot the right media market. you can think about boise. >> what are the investment that is you were -- that were part of programs that you were associated with that you had to make? give us an idea. >> what chris hasn't said is the dumb luck of the s.e.c. poaching two big 12 schools that allowed them to come in. they could have built all the stadiums but if the big 12 stayed solid they would still be the yankees. >> texas a&m. >> always be in the big east because nothsing left and they in the we would be big east. traveling east, my friend. >> but we're here to talk about money so give us some kind of an idea. what does it cost? >> in terms of the investment? think about it. we didn't know -- when we made the investments we made with an unnonet future. we didn't know that the -- unknown future. we were in the mountain west conference. that was our choice with the idea what a new football stadium sustain our growth? would it continue to move forward? we didn't know all of a sudden the opportunity would be there. we did not. so it's hard to sit there and say you've got to do this in order to do that. when we were in the position -- i tell this funny story never underestimate a college keg party. >> amen. >> and here's the deal. i'm in college with a guy named jamie dixon, a basketball coach at pit. i thought he went to santarba bra. he said no i'm coming in. we concocted getting in the big east saying this is who we need to talk to because that was our goal. the time they were in danger of losing their hold. if they dropped tcu they maintained their points. so they wouldn't drop. it was a perfect marriage. who would have known that they were going to leave? we were content with that. but all the moves we made had happened without the knowledge of what was going to take place in the landscape. we had been perfectly content in the big east knowing what we knew then. but once the land scaped changes because of our geography and dumb luck we're i believe to get into the big 12. there's no number. there's no magical number because boise has done wonderful things with their investments. byu has done wonderful things. san diego state, cincinnati, connecticut, these are teams where you start to look, you can start putting cases. part of it is our geography and investment. >> right time, right keg party. >> we were successful. that's right. >> using cincinnati as an example. they have an accumulated operating debt in the tens of millions of dollars and they're paying money every year or the school, or in some form of fashion somebody is paying interest ond that debt. that debt is sitting there. that was a decision that was made by the university to make that investment. going back to the question that you were asking about what's the answer. i mean, and they have done things facilitywise and so forth. you look at some of what's happened around the pac 12 since the new television contract that occurred there. these are schools that are -- that were established schools and you look at what's gone on thin the facilities boom and they paid football coaches particularly within the conference it's been a huge increase. and these were places that are already in. they didn't have to ante up to get in. they were already there. and so -- >> they have to see it though. >> you're still playing the game. and there's not -- you know, it's an amazing -- you look around and see if you know this really well from what's now going on at arizona state in terms of the facility and quest for the sport village. that went on there. and all that was being seeded by that television money. you know, so that's where the ante is. it's in the facilities, in the coaching salaries and doing all those things. >> are you looking at it a little too black and white? i know that's what you're supposed to do you said you were a cynical journalist. if there's an ose car wild quote that said cynic is the price of everything and the value of nothing. you hear about the olympic games and cost overrun. but people think about the university of texas and what's the brand value of the university of texas and what does the football team add and what does that do in terms of recruiting professors and top students and donors and having matthew mcconnaughay do his true detective thing on the sideline for your athletes. i think there's a little bit of cynicism involved in saying either they made a profit or they didn't and there wasn't other answer larry benefits that happened. whether that's the 50-year program or the brand that's the university. the first thing we've said to cities when we've been looking at a potential olympic bid at 2024 if you're trying to make money as the first line then you're not going at it for the right reason. to say we want to have them be cost overruns and be burdens on the cities. but you have to see a bigger picture. i totally understand that your job is to get to those black and white numbers but i think there is some inherent value beyond just whether or not the profit and loss categories for those schools and the investments. >> i will go beyond that value that you're talking about. look at what the economic engines that these athletics departments are for their communities on a weekend in athens, georgia, in oxford, mississippi, in tuscaloosa, alabama, in auburn, alabama. and you look at the amount of money that gets generated as a result of that. i mean, to me if that's -- you know, talk about sort of the public policy piece of it and how that's going. it's -- there's a lot of questions about is that appropriate, is that what college enterprise is all about. and i'm not saying it is or it isn't. if you look at the value of these things, the value of the texas football program every saturday in austin in terms of the number of hotel rooms that are occupied, the number of people sitting in restaurants after the ball game, you drive up and down interstate in florida after a game in gainesville and the cracker barrel is full every saturday night. and that's -- that's what's going on. you know. >> sounds like we need better restaurant choices. i'm kidding. look at this real quick talking about the academic program. the thing about tcu, seven or eight years ago our sath was what it was. ll of a sudden the rise of the chancellor and football coach perfect storm now ten years later we have 20,000 for those 1600 spots. we are the media, we are the brand of our institution. our sat and act have gone through the roof. the quality of student has gone through the roof because the exposure has brought -- there's a president that dropped sports in the big ten years ago, long-time member. and 25 years after, 30 years after the fact, he said the biggest mistake was leaving the big 10. mainstream kids love college athletics. they love, the alums love it. we're pact every game. it's a wonderful experience. we win, lose or draw it has become the fiber of our institution and become the marketing brand. for good it's great, for bad it's bad but we make up 90% of olt media. and that brand -- we were a good regional university because of the vision of our chancellor and through the rise of sport we have changed the face of tcu. i firmly believe that. and -- >> everett university in the country. >> so there -- every university. >> but when you only make up 3% of a budget and think about the engine that is university academic achievement and greatness and you're a small portion of it, we focus so much on the small portion not just the totality of what we bring to the table. >> let's talk for a moment about basketball. we've been spending most of our time talking about football. is there any difference in the calculus between the two sports in terms of the way it needs to be managed going forward given the different i guess amounts of being on one side of the fence versus the other? what do you think? >> i think college basketball right now has a giant problem. the regular season is completely irrelevant. i went to a texas tcu game at texas last year. i almost fell asleep. texas was good, tcu wasn't. not at all. > wow. >> you've name dropped your chancellor so many times today. >> contract's up. >> but i really think that college basketball if you look at the ratings are completely flatlined right now. regular season. the regular season is completely irrelevant. i had a coach tell me this summer that they had their league meetings and the espn came in and basically said the mac football wednesday night game of the week, basically outrates carolina-duke. so we're an event-driven culture. every saturday there's an event on campus at tcu, texas, et cetera. there's so much oversaturation and one of the negative reverberations is everyone is on tv. so it's not special any more. most nights in january i can watch nine or ten games. i find myself watching less because if you can watch vcu during the regular season -- >> you have some serious west hoops if you're watching less. >> i love college basketball. i think it's a compelling sport in a lot of different ways but there's no juice left in the regular season. i think it's somewhat oversaturation, the prism the sport is covered. somebody is saying they're not going to be a three-seed, and the tournament is three months away. the tournament is great. there's notting better in sports than a tournament. it's this awesome beast. it rates well. it's compelling on all soshts of levels. the have-nots have a chance. but i think right now regular season college basketball is an abysmal place. i don't see the jeanie going back in the bottle. >> i would totally agree with you there about our discussion earlier about expanding the size of the football tournament which would i think would be a bad move. but that's a different discussion. terms of the money you con, which has won -- u. con which has won how many titles, they're not part of the big 5. are they? you can get away with it more in basketball than you can in football. basically what realignment has taught us is that basketball doesn't matter. and that's fine. follow the money. right? we're in washington. the money is in foonl, the oney follows football. when is the last time you sat down and said i'm going to watch a football game today? there might be one or two a season. >> i went to maryland. >> any saturday. >> that's kind of an acc game now. i keep looking for maryland in the acc standings. >> there's a few reasons though i think for that. because people want an emotional attachment to their institution or their team or their game. so there are a few institutional problems. one, quite frankly having sat both is the one and done role rule. i think it's bad. the only people it's good for are the agents that are driving the top few guys that come out that can make it into the pros after playing one year. but it makes it more difficult to establish an emotional attachment with the fan at the university because then they're gone. the second issue really is the number of transfers. i think it's something like 40% of college basketball players trance fer after their second year. so we should have fewer opportunities to transfer and have a model more like baseball. if you want to go to the pro's after a year go. god bless you. the other guys that make the mistake of going early are limiting their lifetime earnings. stay in college and get a degree. so if they're in baseball stay three years. it would be better for the product. the last thing is do a better job of marketing. our game presentation was terrible last year and we're fixing that. this year it's going to be dramatically different looking because you've got to go out and work hard to get the people to spend the time and entertainment dollar to come to one of your events. >> you're probably going forward in football you're not going to have a have-not win a championship but it's entirely possible it could happen in basketball. why is that? does it cost less? >> you need one player. >> ok. >> so the game itself. you're saying the game itself. but what about the economics? because we're here to talk about money. is it easier to be a have-not in college basketball? >> the perceived have-nots are really haves. >> but like marquette has a bigger budget. we look at them through a football paradigm exclusively. even if you look at a place like marquette, it's just where are traditions? basketball traditionally because of the espn and big east is is more market driven. those schools who have built up a good reputation in the northeastern region and basketball just costs less. you're going to have to pay a coach the staff is one-eighth of the size. so you can do a lot more with less in basketball which is why butler was able to do what it did. why in the basketball league fox put a dump truck of money on the big east to play. they couldn't say no. 57bd so even though the ratings were miniscule, they barely registered like a little blip. so i just think how completely different the sports are financially and he's right you do need one player. they have a freshman recruit who is going to be one and done that transforms them from a very good team to a potential fine four team. it really -- everything can turn on one player and it's been that case since larry bird and you can go all the way back through history. i don't think that's changed. >> do you think the expansion of the tournament to what is it 60 teams? >> 69. >> do you think that has mean.buted to this -- i the expansion was basically to protect some of the haves. isn't that why they did it? in the mountain west, they split and they didn't want to give another at-large. i don't know. i should know this probably. but i don't think that small tournament expansion has had a big factor. >> i think it's the number of tv games, as you were saying there's so many games to watch. and if you're going to compete -- it's really two different markets the viewing audience and who is in arena. we need to do a better job of marketing and selling and creating an interesting environment. because the pros have gotten so good. college really hasn't done a good job across the board at creating a fun environment for basketball. you go to this guy's place it's rock and roll crazy for tennis. you've got to make it faun, entertaining engaging environment. and when you can't get the emotional attachment because people are transferring, it's a tough sell. >> i think eist also become -- this is part and parcel of the conference realignment. some of that was driven by financial conversations and a lot driven by football. but the trickle-down effect has been interesting as well. because you've seen this kind of shuffle continue its way down into various different leagues. so you're seeing -- you're seeing alignments and games between teams that just don't feel familiar in a way. and what conference -- what conference is butler in this year? you know, these are -- i think that's had an impact on it as well. and that's certainly been driven by financial conversations i think. >> if i was a missouri basketball fan and used to seeing them all these years and now you see auburn, kentucky and florida which is great, you see a good game. but all those other teams, and mississippi state rolls in. i call it the cubecal factor. if you -- i live in bost so i use it like this. if you work at an office in boston and people went to different schools, they've had dreadful home attendance in basketball. i think part is there's no connection to them. now duke comes in and it's great. you have two great nights a year. but florida state, there's no reason to care. >> especially in a competitive market. >> but that's a separate issue from what you were talking about before. you as athletic directors want to fill your buildings and create an exciting event. but really the national discussion is driven by how popular are these things and people's homes. and right now college basketball is having a big problem. can you put the jeanie back in the bottle? >> i think it would help if you didn't have the one and done structure that we have today. >> what would you like to see? >> i would like to see the baseball setup. if somebody wants to come out of high school -- >> let them go. >> they should be coming to the university because they want to be a part of the university. they shouldn't be using it as a training ground. >> i think that hurts the overall perception of college athletics when you do have these kind of tourist students. >> when ivert at the university of arizona they had a great basketball brand and you could say basketball was our bell cow and football was not in terms of the economic budget in terms of an annual basis. but the one and done doesn't hurt in arizona, or kentucky because their fan base has been loyal at the program competing at the highest levels. we've been in four tournaments in 60 years. four. try and look at your success and -- and we were in the mountain west conference arguably was better than the big 1 in terms of basketball. - 12 in terms of basketball. they did not resonate in the metro plex. they're good teams. they didn't resonate. >> i would suggest as a fan that you're right about the brand. combreas could follow those players for four years. >> they were still one and done. but for the 20 years, he was in the final four. he had an amazing record of getting in the tournaments. for us we were in the mountain west conference and -- i mean the big 12. we had to invest. why? because our brand as basketball is nonexistent. but if we're going to make any dent outside exposure we have to have a facility to recruit the athletes. because we don't have a long history of basketball tradition. but if you have the shiny new penny and the right coach and say they do care, it's like bringing a student saying they just built a brand new physics building, they have a peace prize winner from pennsylvania, i'm going there. the same concept in basketball. we're going to make that investment to hopefully you see a return down the road. but basketball -- remember i was running the business, we played a game against kansas. at the time they weren't revenue sharing. god, we must be big money, it was $25,000 for a sunday cbs game. but a game against washington, against arizona paid so much more. it's gone from big west monday to big east tuesday, now we focus so much on the tournament that in college football for a moment every game is critical. >> it's a cautionary tale. >> you've got 12 games and you are now watching the media going crazey from who is in, who is out, who is moving. it's a six-month juggernaut of your stomach being tied up. i bought a case of pepto bismol because every game means something. in college basketball you can win your tournament and get in. have a magical run. and next thing you know you've got a coach because everything is great. >> i'm going to say it from a fan's perspective. i have interest as a fan because i learn about them. pete writes about them over two, three seasons. it's not one and done. some people >> so many people around america probably never knew ?evin durant played what if he had been there for three or four years? then that would have been interested in watching. >> the quality of basketball certainly would have been better. >> but the quality of product that you're watching -- no offense -- why would i watch texas basketball? i don't know anything about them. if i don't go to texas, i'm saying. as a casual fan you do turn to the tournament. >> but the one and done. magic johnson left after his sophomore year. look at michael jordan this has not been recent. igged la. >> but it's getting worse and more pronounced and certainly at certain schools. >> i'll mention going to pac 12 and i'm going to have to buy at the airport. i can name four or five players but if you go through the wole league i can't tell you who has come back. maybe at usc. but this is my job. and i don't know. so the casual fan who likes sports and has nine games to watch doesn't know. and by the time he does know the play ser gone. it's a different model for kentucky basketball. just as for texas football. we have to wrap this up. i want to close with a question. if you had to fix one thing of rding the money aspect where we were heading or one thing that concerns you the most of the road we're heading down what is it? >> i think one of the things -- one of the places where we're headed right now that's scary to me is that as -- and especially at the lower-tiered schooled in the big five. as they struggle to build buildings to compete, they struggle to catch up, i think we could see a purge of nonrevenue sports to focus more money on the sports that matter financially most. i think that's a trend we're going to see. and i don't think that's good for anybody. >> if we go down the road of paying football and men's basketball players as the agents and -- their agents, trial lawyers, would like us to do -- and i've got plenty of friends who are trial lawyers including my little brother -- we're going to be put in a situation as a series of enterprises that we're going to be forced to make that decision. the nonrevenue sports are going to get eliminated. you're going to see schools asked to go from 16 sports down to 12. i've already sat in meetings where those conversations have happened. and that's bad for the country, that's bad for olympic sports, that's bad for opportunities for people to get out of lesser environments, get to university, and have a better outcome in life. >> we just can't lose our voice. we've lost the opportunity for young people. and with focusing on finance today of two -- if you think of college another letics, it's a failed business model in the way it's interpreted in the courts. we have two ref new streams and we are the largest feeder for the olympics. opportunities for students across the spectrum have been phenomenal. but because america has a vivacious appetite for sports, then we are running that program to fund our entirement program. and thank god we have that ability to provide opportunity for a lot of people yet our voice is being lost by trial lawyers, our voice is being lost in the media that says guess what everyone deserves a piece of the pie. we're providing unbelievable opportunities for young people. i hope the train heabt left the station where we can regain some sanity in the amateurs model. >> as someone who play it had sport i hate to say it but football has become too big and overbearing anddom nited so much that i fear we're losing sight of some of the thing that is make our universities great. the opportunities for women in sport. i don't say that because i work at the program but we also have athletes that come from sports that aren't part of the university. i think it's an essential part of the university life to have that sports program and what i hope to see is that as more revenue comes into collegiate sports through say football and basketball, that hopefully some of that money will continue to filter into the world of olympic sports and women's sport to help promote that on campus. >> last word. >> i'm glad i'm going last. i agree with pete. the notion of a broad-based another letics program it's becoming in some places administrator an endangered speech eathies and i think you're seeing some of that kind of -- just the whole disconnect of who the programs are for. and what's the purpose? the students are turning away from going to football games. is it just sort of about entertainment and sort of circuses? and is it the part of what college is and whether or not that's going to happen or whether it's just going to -- if it's just going to become really heavily professionalized and the impact of that across what college athletic programs look like. >> steve, patrick, chris, steve and pete thanks for taking the time to join us today. i want to remind everybody we have another forum coming up shortly and we hope you'll join us for that. thanks for coming. [applause] >> today on c-span a look at where the funding for isis comes from and what the u.s. and its allies are doing to cut off their financial backing. the treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence will be speaking at the carnegie endowment for international peace. d.c. circuit court of appeals judge janice rogers brown spoke at the heritage found dation yesterday as part of their legal lecture series. her remarks focused on the topics of judicial restraint and the rule of law. she was nominated to the d.c. circuit by president george w. bush in 2003 and confirmed by the senate in 2005. this is just over an hour. >> thank you for joining us. it's my privilege to welcome you, those joining us on the website and c-span tv. we would ask everyone in house to make sure that your cell phones have been turned off especially when weather bull tins come. it's amazing what happens in a room. and of course we encourage you to watch our program on line. the honorable edwin mees served as attorney general and serves us as the fellow emertuss. mr. mees. [applause] >> thank you, john. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. it's a pleasure for me to join john in welcoming you to the heritage foundation and particularly to the annual distinguished lecture. this is our most prestigious legal event of our legal centers preserve the constitution series. it's also part of our legal strategy forum which was taking place today and tomorrow. where the c.e.o.'s and primary legal officers of the freedom-based public interest law organization thrussout the country, some 40 of them, get together to plan their efforts to defend the constitution and to bring justice to the people of the united states. so we're glad to have them with us in the audience this evening. the lecture of course is named after the supreme court justice joseph story for two reasons. first because of his dedication to the constitution and secondly because of his influence on the law. he had one of the most outstanding impacts on the development of our system of justice and particularly the development of the law itself in the united states during his time on the court. as a matter of fact, oliver wendell holmes particularly said that story, who did not always agree with justice story, said that he had done more than any other english speaking man in this century -- his century -- to make the law lumenuss and easy to understand. he also served as a professor of law at harvard university. he was almost single handedly brought that university's law school into being since the year before he arrived they had only one student. eexpanded the student body as part of his contribution there. while on the supreme court he continued's a pattern that the early justices always followed to ride circuit for the appellate courts and occasionally trial courts in the northeastern part of the united states while at the same time continuing to teach at harvard and also to do his duties on the supreme court of the university. -- united states. so he had a biggy schedule that he followed and carried out in a very distinguished and dedicated manorer. noting just his experience and his broad reach of his activities relating to the justice system, we have tonight a distinguished guest who has an even broader experience in the law. she has literally had experience in virtually every aspect of our justice system. she is married to dueie parker who is with us here this evening. she graduated from the ucla law school and received her llm degree from the university of virginia and their graduate program for judges. between to show the variety of her experience, between graduation from law school and her appointment to the federal bench, she served depirts of all in every branch of california government. she drafted bills initially in her first experience in the legislative council's office dealing there with the state legislature. she served in the attorney general's office which is almost a separate branch in california. she was deputy secretary and general counsel of the business and housing organization there. and then ultimately was legal affairs secretary to governor pete wilson. she then had experience in private practice in one of the state's distinguished law firms there. and then went on to her experience in the judiciary first as an associate justice of the third district court of appeal in sacramento and then on the california supreme court. because of this vast experience in her distinguished service in 2005 president george w. bush appointed her as the judge of the court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit where she continues her distinguished service to our nation. so ladies and gentlemen, please join me in recognizing the joseph story distinguished lecturer for the year 2014, the honorable janice rogers brown. [applause] >> thank you. you are a lovely audience. i probably should sit down now. but i want to thank the heritage foundation for asking me to deliver this year's joseph story lecture. i am honored and frankly a bit intimidated to be in such company. i have attended many of the other lectures. i especially want to express my gratitude to ed mees for his friendship for his many kindnesses and for being such a miven. for those of you who do not speak yiddish it means a man of integrity and honor. but for general mees' courage and integrity, conversations like this probably would not be taking place. we are all indebted beyond anything we can repay because he took seriously his oath to support and defend the constitution. this is where i -- >> [applause] this is where i usually offer my caveats and tell people i'm not a scholar or a philosopher and certainly not a theelogen. but today i'm going to do something a little different and i'm going to speak as a conservative. and as a conservative judge. one who has the good for tune to be particularly ill-educated, having escaped an ivy league education, i now find myself free to think however i like. i suppose if i had been around when judge story was teaching at harvard i might have rethought that. but as a conservative, i spend most of my time thinking about the present evils of this world. unlike my liberal counter parts who spend their time thinking of new ones. these days frankly i find myself a little like gladys night thinking i've really got to use my imagination to think of good reasons to keep on keeping on. for those of you too young to know gladys, you tube. as i grow older i have developed a new appreciation plan, reform reform. > that's why discussions generally have had a distinctly remedial if not downright aljeek tone. we speak of restoring, reviving and defending the constitution. i do not think our sense of urgency is overblown. our panic is justified. the title of this speech adds my incrimental bit of the theme of preserving the fortress of our liberties. my analogy is drawn from the stone mason. i suggest we might consider repointing the constitution. those who do not live in old brick buildings may be unfamiliar with that term. when we first moved to washington we purchased a row house in the district. being from the valley, california, a part that has little experience of row houses or old houses of any kind, we were completely unprepared to deal with the maintenance required for structures that had been withstanding the elements for more than a century but even as we were stacking, moving boxes our next door neighbors warned us to expect strong smells, and dust because they were having their house reappointed. what? they explained that the destruction of the bricks was caused most from the martyr between. it is a pains taking and labor intensive process and as i learned more about it i became aware of the critical importance of the replacement cement having properties similar to the original more tar. newer and stronger cements might actually be too good. according to author of the art of the stone mason, modern materials can hasten the deterioration of the stone by being so unyielding that over the seasons of change they actually crack the bricks, a calamity nothing can repair. the result is a pile of rubble. thus repointing seemed the perfect analogy to our task in supporting and defending the constitution. is it not the new ingredient, progressivism, the love child of the modern enlightenment that has ruined the constitutional edfass and impoverished our original understandings? so we must ask ourselves, what was the ingredient of that more tar, that binding spell that gave us statements like adams and madison, judges like marshall and story, and presidents like washington and lincoln? what made america possible, limited government conceiveable, and can we, so greatly changed, recapture the optimism and certitude of the founders ia world of big government and judge nays writes none of them could have imagined. or, was a republic, peopled by free men, a naive and childish dream to which we widser, more sophisticated grown ups should bid good ridance? though america seems a miracle was it only a product of its time destined to fail as the sensibilities failed from the national conscience? is there anything to be learned about constitutional repointing from a judge like joseph story? perhaps. a couple of examples of constitutional interpretation based on two very different species of normtive reasoning may bring the issues into clearer focus. one time the judges wrote based on the anchor of a fixed constitution. joseph story was part of that