tv Today in Washington CSPAN February 10, 2010 2:00am-6:00am EST
i don't know how if that crib were on the recall list of folks would ever know. where that becomes important in the resale industry, the good will, christian community action stores in my district that do great work for providing low-cost products to the young families who don't have the wherewithal to buy new products how do you get that information to them and that is one of the things we struggled with when we did 4040 product. am i overstating that? >> i agree. there's definitely going to be danger. that's why we feel like the ban is important and we've been
doing a lot of media and word-of-mouth. i am small but i have a large mouth when it comes to this and i make sure every person i talked to -- and sometimes i feel like being a little hurtful to the pregnant mom i'm walking up to by explaining my story to her, but i think that is the only way to get it out there. >> let me just ask you, and you heard my opening statement about whether or not the safety standards we believe corps volunteer reform mandatory. do you have a feeling about that? should the standards be voluntary? >> i think they should be mandatory. >> and the last question, again you already answered it, what would you fix about the drop side crib, you would fix it by not having it, probably fix it with an ax. >> we say we would break them, burn them and throw them away. [laughter] >> i can't even tell you the crib my kids were in, it was probably manufactured in the
1930's and like mr. braley's experience, i mean, i tried hard to destroy it sitting in the back of the u-haul over several moves. [laughter] and that thing was, i mean you just couldn't destroy it. i feel we have to be careful how we proceed. mr. chairman, we got into a lot of difficulty with unintended consequences and we did the 44 a bill. i've got motorcycle dealers in my district who are banned from selling them in case the cade eats the battery he can get poisoning. that's ridiculous and we haven't gone back and fix that so i do want to be careful of the same time. here is a problem. i have got a list of recalls going back to the 70's. to million in 2009, 1 million into thousands of men, 104,000, 6,097, 1,006,086, 70,078, clearly there's a problem we need to solve. i will yield back the balance of my time.
>> thanks, mr. burgess. most people don't eat batteries so i don't think it's really necessarily be law but the way that we apply it, and that is the reason for testimony the cirigliano's and suggestions i agree the application of law we passed is in the best by any administration. and it's part of rubber job to make sure they are done. mr. green for questions please. >> thank you mr. chairman. and hitting both from congressman braley and, chris mann burgess, when our now it will be 5-years-old when she was my daughter was expecting, i went to the attic and got the crew for our children which was the 1970's and my wife explained to me very quickly they were too far apart and instead of putting it on the curve i took a sledgehammer to meet so nobody else could use it and that is will bothers me i guess because i was trying to use them from generation to generation. that doesn't work. our grandchildren actually stay
in a pack and play. the seven month old and used in the past week, the parents actually put the rail upside down. did you have problems with instructions -- having put together lots of stuff, it sometimes is real difficult and don't torque it too much because you might have to take it off and put it back together again. did you have problems with the instructions? >> ipod primero having problems with the instructions, but the one thing i felt odd was our instructions were on the mattress board. that's the board that is put under the mattress. so you are actually putting the instructions in place and then i just remember -- it was just the odd's thing and to this day i can't believe that was. it wasn't a piece of paper, it was on the magers board --
>> at least they would make it on the upside so you could read -- >> it was pretty bizarre. that's another problem. >> -- the need to make sure that one, they are easily readable but also common sense-why is that you have it and again for the loss of your child, like to say, we have had three in the houston area over the last few years. >> we know. >> it is a tragedy. i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. greene. ms. schakowsky for questions, please. >> i will pass on questions. but i just really, really want to thank you for informing us with what is probably the most compelling testimony of all, and that is your personal experiences, and your advice. i think right now there is some voluntary standards about not
having any drop side cribs. we want to make sure they are eliminated from the marketplace. so no one else has your experience. and i admire you for giving up to pregnant women. that may be the most important piece of advice they get during their pregnancy. and, you know, being pushy in that sense is a really good thing. thank you very much for being here today. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> ms. sutton for questions please. >> thank you for your testimony, for coming forward today. we are so sorry for your loss. mr. chairman, i want to thank you very much for holding this hearing because, you know, it is clear with millions of kurds being recalled because problems with the drop side, it is time for the cpsc to take action to protect the infants and address millions of parents concerns.
we have a responsibility to act to ensure parents can lead their infant down without fear in their cribs. and i am deeply concerned also that when we hear about problems oftentimes products that are recalled or manufactured in other countries, and it is unconscionable when companies and importers pay more attention to the cost than the safety. product safety has to always be the primary focus. and so parents as i said should not have to worry about leaving their infant child in a crib and being exposed to grave danger. so while we are happy that the recall advise parents, but it's after the danger is present and identified. the products need to be safe when they are manufacturing and put on the store shelf. now, mr. chairman, one of the reasons why i appreciate this hearing in court testimony also
race that it trolls attention to this problem where we have products coming in but consumers assume are living up to our safety standards and they may not even know that it is impossible to subject for manufacturers to the u.s. law. and i'm going to be introducing soon a bill called the foreign manufacturers legal accountability act to protect american consumers and businesses from defective products manufactured abroad because we need to make sure the products are being consumed in this country are safe for consumption. thank you again for your testimony. we are sorry for your loss. thank you for being here. >> thank you. >> thank you both for being here. thanks for your testimony in helping us understand the issue more. we are going to continue this hearing. you are welcome to stay if you
would like we are discussing now. thanks again and thanks for working with us. >> thank you. the next panel of witnesses on the second panel, we have michael schweiker, executive dirk of the manufacturing association come forward. it is the policy of the subcommittee did all testimony under oath. please be advised you have the right under the rules of the house be advised by the council during your testimony. do you wish to be represented by counsel? >> nope. mr. plater, miss cowles? both indicated not the master to raise your hand and take the oath. do you swear or affirm the testimony to be the truth, the truth and a matter pending before the subcommittee? >> i do. >> let the record reflect both
the witness answered in the affirmative. they are now under oath. we would ask for an opening statement of five minutes if you have a longer statement supporting documents we would be happy to make it part of the record. pull the microphone up and pushed the button. thank you. >> good morning. >> ranking member walden, let me thank the committee -- >> i don't think the mic is on. try again. >> that's much better. what we see through the house subcommittee on oversight investigations for holding this important hearing on a curb safety and giving the opportunity to principate. i have a much lengthier statement which i believe i've already submitted so i will read very briefly for a shorter statement for this purpose. kids in danger is a nonprofit organization based in chicago the decade to protecting children by and provincial friends product safety. as congresswoman schakowsky mentioned we were founded in
1990 after the parents -- by the parents of danny, killed in a portable crib at his child care location even though the home had been inspected days before the crash had been recalled five years earlier and had already killed four children, and yet there was no publicity, no one knew that it was recalled in that home. and our mission is to prevent this from happening to other children to promote the development of safe children's products, advocate for children and educate the public of these important issues. and i think it has been said the crowd dispersed and foremost a safety device. critics are the only true friends product that is made to leave a child unattended so as some as said you can get a few hours of sleep yourself. the concerns of this issue are not new. crib durham of the, strenuous testing, hardware failure, assembly problems raised and almost every one of the voluntary standards incidents i've attended since i joined that body in 2001. yet there has been until very
recently little or no change to the standard for years. the mandatory standard has been stuck even further back in time to read any changes were made to the voluntary standards even the final safety message to the commissioner of banning corner posts does not appear in the current federal standard. the failure of the voluntary systems adequately protect children is what let congresswoman jan schakowsky to chris introduce the legislation that's not in the cp is like a calling for the mandatory standards and third-party testing back in 2001. had we done it then we may have a different outcome to the story here triet citizen the problem wasn't known. rather it is cpsc lacked the authority and in the factors lacked the will to strengthen the standards. now with a statutory requirement and the vehicle we will be seeing a strong standard. as has been mentioned since september, to the essence of an over 7 million chris sefton recalled by the cpsc. most were tested to a voluntary
standard and certified by the juvenile product manufacturers association. many were recalled for hardware failure, a drop site failures, but some were recalled for clear violations of the mandatory standard. they were painted with lead paint or simply did not meet the required to mention. if the manufacturers are making claims that don't meet the standards that can be confirmed with a tape measure and lead tests what then how can we expect they can be safe in terms of designed to keep babies safe and attended? this current situation leads parents in a horrible position. we often get calls from parents asking for advice what to do, especially as they hear of these recalls. we can be of limited help. we can't say to look for the jpma label since all the recalled cribs were certified to that standard. we can say to stay away from the drop side christa there's also incident with magers support, hardware failure and crib slats. the only thing always want is for parents to get the idea that
other places are safer for their babies and eckert. babies are safe in a secret and that is why this is urgent that we solve this problem now. let me briefly talk about consumer use of cribs. parents will it is a crib for more than one child. they will pass them on to their sister or their friends and sell them second hand. it doesn't mean it's a 20 year old could they are passing on. it could be a two or 3-year-old crib. we can assume someone spends, you know, up two at thousand dollars on a product they are not going to use it for two years and then throw it out. it is not consumer miss us when eckert is assembled, taken apart and reassembled more than once. in addition to military families, i was an air force brat myself to move frequently, other families living and many parents of the a price of their doctors start with the crib in their bedroom and then move to the child's bedroom later on. in these tough economic times, and in the midst of a growing green mind set, manufacturers should expect that this is what will happen to their products. they will be used for more than
one child or even more than just two children in a row. if tikrit can't handle being reassembled, it shouldn't be sold. if the crib falls apart, losing screws or the little safety plugs or has a drop side that once did, parents are going to try to fix it. they@@@@@@@ $b,rr" lead to death is a design problem and not consumer misuse problem. as i said, have specific things, but i would also like to just mention the public consumer
incident database that the cpsc is working on because i think that will also be very important for the safety. that we parents can get the information themselves if they are about to buy a creek or have a problem with their credit they can find other people have the same problem so i applaud the cpsc for moving ahead on that. second, i have something i would suggest for this committee and that is the big problems of recall effectiveness. the crabs are in and out there when they are recalls of the 7 million kurds recalled more than half of them are probably still in use. we need to improve the recall effectiveness. one way you can help to that is to require the cpsc to report to you annually on their recall effectiveness for each of the recalls preach manufacturers required to file a monthly correct action report that says how many consumers have contacted them, how many products that replace or fixed. if that information was public, right now it is a very difficult process to get, i think that alone would make manufacturers work harder to get those products out of use. again, thank you so much today. i appreciate it and i would be happy to answer any questions.
>> mr. dwyer, your opening statement please, sir. >> good morning, chairman stupak. ranking member walden, i appreciate the opportunity to testify about krin safety. the timing of the hearing is fortuitous. my former colleague and i spent two days at the cpsc is a lot of the voluntary standard for the full-size krebs which the cpsc is open to promulgate later this year as a new federal standard. we've long advocated the adoption of the more expansive at 1169 as a mandatory federal standard. at the behest of chairman tannenbaum, the juvenile products manufacturers astm and consumer out a cigarette worked with the cpsc technical staff to update the cpsc crib regulations. this will making comes on the heels of similar rule making for infant walkers, bath seats and upcoming rules on toddler beds and bassinets and cradles. the rules are all occurring pursuant to section 104 of the cpsc passed by congress in 2008 with extensive input from the full committee.
jpma will continue to work collaboratively with all the stakeholders towards our common goal of promoting the safest and most effective juvenile product safety standards in the world. our members produce products that help prevent injuries to our children while tragic accidents often occurred or may occur these products save many lives. as an example, try and become a child restraint seats save an untold number of children's lives in motor vehicle accidents. some will become eckert sell pledge your children are released safely to sleep. jpma offers a program to benefactor's willing to have their products tested, to the astm standards like the third party cpsc lubber three c's predators the vacation program was created in 1976 when manufacturers approached the association of setting it on to receive the standard for high chairs. that has evolved but it's still in effect today. since then, jpma has covered 19 additional products with two more pending. astm some of the largest poultry standards organizations in the
world over 22,000 members world wide. astm standards are developed on a consensus basis by all interested parties. any reputable stakeholder can join the standards to limit committee and vote on all aspects of the standard. every standard development committee member with a vote can influence this process. for years, astm asra to one of the consumer advocacy to the karadzic to see keeping bbc and kids in danger on the development of a variety of juvenile products standards. including the full-size eckert standard. the first federal full-size eckert standard was promulgated in 1973 as we heard earlier and astm developed the first standard in 1988. the 13 standard fully incorporated the federal standard and at numerous performance testing requirements including corner post height restrictions and additional warning labels and instructional requirement. since then it has been modified all times to address the emerging hazards including last december's modifications which eliminated the traditional jobsites and established credit to the colcord testing procedures.
at 1169 has been extremely effective. during the 2007 hearing on the cpsia, the test but to 89% reduction in fatalities due to a solution and effectiveness of the voluntary standard. the federal standard has been updated once since its inception 37 years ago. the cpsc relied on the astm standard as the best role for promoting currency in the marketplace. jpma your vacation program provides consumers the best regional the crab meat with mandatory and voluntary standards. here's how the program works. the manufacturer must apply to participate in the program and agreed to have all of its models and product category tested to the applicable astm standard. we do not test products ourselves nor maintain our own standards. jpma relies on exports at independent third-party cpsc let to verify compliance that the applicable astm standard. jpma has never used or promoted his own safety standards to recall products including full-sized curbs bearing the jpma certification logo must
meet all parts of the applicable astm standard. achieving compliance is the beginning of the manufacturers obligation on the program. many factors must submit to ongoing testing. this testing ochers quarterly ferc least 25% of models so that all models are tested at least once per year. in addition, an independent third-party cpsc accredited laboratory pulls the products at random from retail shelves and tests the products for compliance. jpma as part of our role in promoting safe because safety for the vulnerable segment of the population. according to the first candle one of the nation's leading non-profit organizations, dedicated to safe pregnancy and survival of babies through the first years of life, there are about 4700 incidents each year involving infants sleeping in fireman's, at least 80% of parents and caregivers putting their children in an unsafe place outside the crib. a properly assembled a full functional astm crib remains the safest place. unfortunately tragic accidents can occur. with improperly assembled second
use or heirloom cribs. we believe that your information and education can reduce these fatalities involving missing hardware or improper or reassembled cribs. that is why society because the 19 designated safe sleep is the theme for the safety month for a piece which takes place in the ninth month of teacher. jpma is working with cpsc, retail partners and interested consumer advocacy groups to promote safe crib assembly and safe sleep practices. jpma welcomes all efforts in this regard. again, thank you for the opportunity to appear today. >> thank you. questions for the members. is cowles, let me ask you come in your statement, and explainable but more on page two and going to the top of page three, you talk about the corner post in effect but if you mentioned the corner post of the cribs. and then you go on to say, the top of page three of the same time demand for standard has been instructed in time as well all the changes have been made to the voluntary standard even the final safety measure of
banning corner posts on krebs was integrated into the astm fall/winter standard doesn't appear in the federal standard. so it was mandatory and now it is voluntary? >> it was never mandatory. it's always been in the voluntary standard. they first started -- as mr. dwyer mentioned the standard was passed in 1988 but the start of working on it in 1984 after unfortunately another child named danny died when he struggled on the corner post of his bed. so it's always been in the voluntary standard. specs, right now i can make a crib, i could have the post it's a voluntary standard? not to do it? >> you could have it probably have difficulty if he wanted to sell through the traditional retailers who wouldn't take it but with the extent of the internet and the cpsc would probably recall that they got it but you could certainly try to sell it. it doesn't violate the mandatory standard. spec doesn't violate the mandatory standard? >> right. >> all right.
mr. dwyer, the jpma is a trade association that represents the manufacturers of children's products of course. you offer members a certification as you testified, and there is a fee for the certified product which is sacred that meet all applicable mandatory standards as well as voluntary standards of the astm; correct? >> that is correct. >> the jpma encourages members to use the seal of approval -- i think we had it on the board there at one time -- and they are advertising to show consumers that they are speed -- jpma certified. this ad i think is on tabby 11. if you want to look on the book in front of you. in this ad, jpma ran several magazines for new parents. this says and i quote, quote could be confident the juvenile products are designed and built with safety in mind." what is the safety in mind mean in the and? >> parents can be assured the
products that we certify meet the applicable voluntary and mandatory standards for those products. >> okay. >> in a way it would be safe to say your certifying of the curve as being safe and? >> we are verifying that the manufacturers who meet at astm along with all of their stakeholders to discuss incident data, that is used to drive the activity of the committee. and if there are issues related to a product concern that they address those and incorporate those into the standard and that the manufacturers meet the standards. >> so what you are really saying is we've met all the standards. this product meets the standards whether voluntary or mandatory; right? what they're fleeing safety just that the standards are met? is that what we are seeing? >> we believe by meeting of the standards of the products are safe and that manufacturers take into account certainly the safety of the ultimate
customers, they are babies when they built these products. >> the ad goes on and again i want to quote it says body may jpma certified product in any of the below category center was the product has gone through an extra set of rigorous testing. or the past several years and we've heard testimony today the cribs involved in some of the largest recall simplicity, delta, storch craft, they all earn the jpma seal of safety certification. so my question, mr. dwyer, has jpma changed the certification for the program in light of the recalls we've seen and infected and tuesday we had one of 635 cribs. have you changed the certification that would be found in this ad? >> to make sure everybody's clear the certification is a verification that they meet the standard. >> correct. >> as the standard changes the certification changes in much it is a verification of the standard. i'm not sure i understand --
>> i guess the recalls started in 2008 and 2001, sport craft had two big recalls. of the standards changed? >> the astm standards? >> yes. >> the standard changed with a recent change in december that would ban the drop side and also had an integrity test in the requirements to the current standard as well. in december of 2009. -- when you certify now, when you run this ad, that means that the slat has been changed, and what is no more drop side, right? >> it terrifies the groups meet the standards however the certification program does allow for 180 days suffrage propose that we will suffer defeat does certify six months after it's been implemented. >> when is the six months of? >> it will be in june, i don't the the exact date but i know manufacturers at this point to move products out of the marketplace, they are no longer manufacturing the jobsites
products. >> but just so we are clear we have until june so there still could be drop side crib's right now for sale with ravee jpma sprick certification because they have until june, 180 days? >> that is correct. >> i guess my time is up. mr. walden, questions? >> that would be on less the cpsc recalls that. >> that is correct. >> that would be the only check then, if there is an identified problem and the cpsc get stat income issue a recall and take those out of the marketplace, but the parents may still have those credits, legacy chris if you will. >> that is correct. >> as your quote in the press saying the problem existed for ten years and nothing has been done we are glad to see it is not a crisis and people are acting. t want to talk about '? >> sure. >> nothing has been done in ten years? >> i sat on the astm committee
since 2001 and there's another members on the committee before that. in those meetings the same issues we are talking about today, the same issues we talked about the last two days where we actually finally made real progress such as putting in a test in canada during all that time, it subjects the credit to much more vigorous shaking and testing much more similar -- to a child might do. and we have asked repeatedly since 2001 to add that test to the astm standard and was never added. >> so on the astm standards -- in your committee i am not sure how that operates. how many members are on that committee? >> mike might know better than i do. i would say around 50. >> i would say actively purchase of hitting its least 50. stomachs of 50 members, 15 that we participate? >> 50. 5-0, correct. >> during the period you then on and this has been floating around, have seven recommendations come forward that he voted against because they are not strong enough?
>> yes. as one of the sometimes three sometimes for consumers in the room out of the 50. our votes on fortunately did not go far. >> couple of follow up on that? i mean, and again i don't -- i'm not representing astm. they are not hereaa stockcraft lose membership status in your organization? >> they would not, the certification programs are separate and apart from the membership of the organization.
-- of the same for delta and other brands that are jpma certified? >> correct. >> so they can still be a member -- >> correct. >> okay. even though they have these -- in your testimony, jpma list server 20 categories in this to petition program and including the krebs and infant carriers. which product should cpsc list as the top priority for the safety issues and issues a standards as soon as possible? >> in my opinion which products? i would say cribs and that is why we spend today is and why the chairman reached out to the manufacturers and the consumer groups and asked as i testified to please help us accelerate rulemaking on the full-sized cribs. >> and ms. cowles, are you satisfied with the recommendations that came out in december? >> i think banning drop side cribs is an important step, however, the real problem with the drop side, with as the
family testified is hardware, using plastic hardware and the hardware pieces are still in other parts of the crib so we do believe we still need the stronger test to test hardware for turtle to come and that affect is being talked about in the meetings we've been too. so we are satisfied the new mandatory standard will have sufficient strength once we get to the plate. >> did you will vote on this new standard that cannot in december? >> not yet. process -- >> i'm sorry. did you both support that? >> i abstained from voting on the astm committees. we support and administrative role but i do support the activities. >> okay. >> the manufacturing problems i think is the issue we are all looking at. what should be done? >> in terms of the manufacturing of the product itself? i would submit and bring back what me say many of these are
design issues if you design a product with that part where but manufacturing and i think one of the reasons the older crib's people are talking about is having seemed to hold up well were made under the same regulations but were made, you know, here under -- and the manufacturing plays a role and i am hoping that both jpma, astm and cpsc -- if you choose to make a product overseas that you're selling to american consumers need to make sure it is as safe as if you need it here. that is the responsibility. >> mr. dwyer d want to comment? >> manufacturers of the products are incredibly irresponsible. ultimately they our customers, they are babies. i'm the father of three children. i used a drop site could handed down by a friend of a friend, disassembled three times, putting together three times, took care to follow the instructions every time and manufacturers of this, ultimately the children's lives are the most precious commodity,
and i believe manufacturers have always had that -- >> if i can interrupt for a second. family behind you made the comment about the instructions being on the bottom of the mattress or the bottom of the slat and sort of glue on there. is that done so it continues on if somebody takes apart? >> correct. sprick i don't know if anybody keeps the instructions for something together. >> correct. it's part of the standard because, just that comes to the instructions don't get lost if the credits handed down or if it is disassembled in between each child, which a product should be made to be able to be disassembled multiple times as nancy indicated. and the instructions are on their savitt don't get lost. -- >> so that is what they are glued on. exceeded my time. >> mr. braley? >> i want to follow the last comment to me. benefactors of the products are an incredibly irresponsible. you stand by that statement? >> idp respect is did you
indicate a manufacturers association has grown to include more than 250 member companies in the united states, canada and mexico, and that these companies manufacture and it or in port infant products. >> correct. >> do you have members that our manufacturers in china and vietnam? >> no, we do not. actually, our main factors in the country or manufacture in those countries. >> right. but might we days since you have the word in port i assume some of your members are importing products that are being manufactured, and that is true demand factor is that you are referring to when you set manufacturers are incredibly responsible. >> manufacturers that are members of the association must a place of business in north america but his, some of them to manufacture their products overseas or in part mark overseas, yes. >> is it customary that the inspections that you rely upon are done at the plant manufacturing? >> the inspections for the
certification program? they are done both domestically and overseas. >> okay. you are aware that it's much more difficult to ensure the integrity of those inspection process these when they are being done in a country like china, which has very strict controls on access? >> our members and take great care to visit with their factories overseas every year and make sure quality-control practices are taking place at the highest levels. >> have you ever tried to serve a chinese manufacturer of a defective product that's marketed in the guidance petites debate -- the united states? for legal process? >> i have not. >> tuna what is involved in the process? you know international treaties have to be complied with and that service has to be performed domestically through the chinese government that erect some roadblocks that can prolong the actual accountability of foreign manufacturers who are selling defective products in this
country for years and years if you are ever successful? >> i'm not familiar with that process. >> are you aware certain states like my home state of iowa have domestic laws that provide immunity to the sellers of products like some of your members if the manufacturer is accountable and can be served, and that may put you into this and less limbo of trying to get service in a country that doesn't want its manufacturers to be served. and that's exactly what representative sutton is talking about in the bill she's about to introduce. are you familiar with that problem with your work with these many people selling products that affect infants' lives and safety in this country? >> no sir but our program is built with safety and mine and we have testing, will double testing, multiple testing for the consumer product safety act was even implemented. our program, section 104, the requirements of the certification are more robust and the mirror what this
congress, but this committee is to get it. i am not familiar with the challenges, with serving chinese manufacturers, with, you know, warrants for a defective products, but we are here to talk about our certification program, the astm standards. >> in your certification program, have you ever encountered incidents where the instructions on assembly are written in that country of origin in some form of english that would not make sense to anybody in this room, and yet it is being used by the manufacturer and subsequent seller of that product as a guide for people in the assembly of that product? are you aware that takes place? ..
and so that is a requirement. >> and that's my point. my point is the manufacturer in the latest recall is located in china, located in yet time. and they sometimes have a very different understanding of the english language and american consumers putting a product together. i'm not just talking about from a professional standpoint. i'm talking about the standpoint of a parents is assembled many
of these products and has frequently mystified by what the intention is in the assembly process because it's obviously been written by somebody who doesn't live in this country. >> are you specifically talking about terrel recall 635,000? where that cribb was put together with factory prepared speared criminal charges were charged against the spirit for a future child. >> about that before i closed on the mr. chairman. what happens in these cases is everybody engages in finger-pointing. and one of the first people on the line are the parent dealing with the tragic loss of their child who are frequently blamed and subject to criminal prosecutions, which are many times later.. and i think that it's important that if there are manufacturers profiting from the sale of these products, they take a good look in the mirror and do everything they can to address the problem not always blame the parents and that's why this here today so
important and i yield that. >> thank you, mr. braley. it should be noted on the case with appearance charges were dropped. and so, just for the record is clear. mr. burgess, when he comes back i will reserve a spot with the max. so i guess we are to admit schakowsky. >> i want to talk a little bit more about the role of parents parents -- a. n-november lasher we talked about this but the cpsc store craft recalled 2 million cribs would drop side hardware. as part of the recall, store craft created an instructional video and posted it on youtube. and so whoever's working on mack, let's get it up there to show consumers how to identify problems with their cribs and how to install the repair kits the company supplied so if you play that.
>> before each usage for assembly, inspector check for damage hardware, loose joints, missing parts or sharp edges. do not use the crib if any parts are missing or broken >> so let me ask you, ms. cowles, is it responsible are realistic to expect parents will follow this recommendation in the real world? >> no, i don't do get a parent does that every time they put a baby in a crib anymore than you open your head and check everything before you get in your car to drive. it's certainly something we might expect them to do occasionally, but no, i think parents assume the crib is going to stay put together. >> mr. dwyer, do you think a mother or father would wake up at 2:00 in the morning and put the baby back and that is going to go around and do a crib inspection every time before putting the baby back to sleep?
>> having been a very tired father one time, no, ma'am. >> so mr. dwyer, keep put together for thomas questions page about topside cribs. it's on tabbed time of the document finder. and here's which are associations that she says. jpi may remind caregivers that when you assemble a crib to the manufacturer's instructions and use it structurally crib provides the safest sleeping environment for abb. what do you mean by by use it properly? >> that is assemble according to the manufacturer's instructions. >> and inspected every time, right? >> would recommend that parents be aware that inspection may be needed and we also have safely guidelines for when not to put in the crib. that's part of the whole process, such as heavy blankets or pillows or that type of
thing. >> store craft ceo jim moorish entered a statement after the november recall in which parents properly used the drop side cribs and infants entrapment. here's how the news account quoted mr. moore. in the majority of instances, the cribs were being used with open hearts, parts and pieces minicar parts were damaged or was modified or home made cards, unquote. so ms. cowles, what do you think about the store craft response? >> i think it is particularly damaging to the recall process, that would manufacturers comment and as mr. dwyer has done here and blame the individual parents whose child either with diaper was hurt, it basically says to every other parents using that crib, i'm sure you don't need to worry about your crib because you're a smart parent who's using it correctly. and so i think that kind of language, especially after the
cpsc has been negotiating with them the press release and come to an agreement of what's going to be said about it than the company comes out later that day or the next day with those damaging comments. i think again both discourages parents from participating with the reca&l@@@@@@@rr")@ ,rr asia cribs charged with criminal negligence or whatever it was. >> i just want to clarify for mr. braley does calm were not by
the association and i was made aware they were extenuating circumstances that that crib they were showed that tape holding the pieces of the crib together and that one side was broken from the crib and had been pushed against the wall. i was aware that criminal charges have been brought for child endangerment and also drug charges. i was not aware they have been dropped, but i specifically addressing i do not want those dreams recalled because they were not certified by the association. >> did you want to comment, ms. cowles? >> i know that's not why were here today but i've been working with many parents whose children have been killed, more time than you can imagine that is always threatened or brought before the medical examiner can ascertain that the product itself was defective. i got parents charged with that, with child abuse, with all kinds of things. and so, the initial charge made by police have notification of what is actually responsible for
that child's death, especially in a case like this were the charges are dropped. >> thank you. >> ms. sutton, questions please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to follow-up on two things. first of all, representative braley's line of questioning on foreign manufacturers. i just want to invite all of our colleagues to seriously consider getting on this bill. it's a bipartisan bill to make sure that we can process and submit people who are selling products in this country to the jurisdiction of our courts and enforcement of our laws. that's what i think the american people expect. and those are the consumers. yes, your customers are intense. with parents. and they're counting on us to deliver a degree of safety. but i also want to follow-up with ms. schakowsky's land of
question because i think this idea of parental error versus product defect is an important one. and along the same lines, in september 2007, cpsc recalled more than a million simplicity drop side crips. one involving the company. and the cpsc noted some involved the drop side upside down, unintentionally. in this situation the drop side would function upside down. it would function my way and it would weaken the hardware and in some cases detach from the crib. besides to drop side cribs have the same problem, had similar problems. so stork craft asserts this problem is not the companies fall. in the stork craft provided to the committee located at tab eight in the document finder, the company states, and i quote, this absolutely unreasonable to expect that to two reasonably foresee that a consumer would in
stall the drop side rail upside down. mr. dwyer, do you agree with that to's statement. is it on for siebel that a consumer might improperly installed upside down with the drop side will still function that way? >> i'm not intimately familiar enough with the project. obviously, if the product is manufactured in such a way that it could be installed upside down as was the case with this product, that that would be the case. >> i don't understand your answer. >> your question is, is a foreseeable for that product or rail to be installed upside down? apparently, that is the case. it is foreseeable if it can be installed upside down. >> okay, few agree with the stork craft's statement that it is unreasonable to expect that to be foreseen? >> i would say based upon the information, limited information about the specific product as i read it everyday here would say i disagree with that statement.
>> thank you. and ms. cowles, i understand i understand you are part of a task group to examine the improper drop side installation? they produced an e-mail to the committee, which is located at tab one of the document finder. and it relates to this issue. this is an e-mail chain between you, jonathan midgett cpsc looking at improper assembly hydroxide. dr. midgett who was an engineering psychologist comments as follows, the best way to prevent disassembly is to the consumer's ability to put parts in the bond place. the least effective strategy is to modify the instructions or create a list of warnings. to his coworkers at cpsc, dr. midgett dothan and e-mail to industry has been, freakish and its insistence on instructions of crips are at fault.
this only makes sense if you know or don't want to change any of the shape of your crib hardware and would rather blame the consumer end quote. ms. cowles is this consistent with your experience in negotiating crib safety standards. >> i think is very consistent with mike's parents on the committee and and never mention them i wonder testimony the committee will not look at incidents that happen in cribs older than five years old even though we heard from the family that could've easily been a crib that was in one place and not reassembled because they consider at all. they're very quick to blame when they can account things to let the consumer dead rather than to their crib. and again, as i said today, if it is made so you can put together in a way that causes death, that the design problem, not a consumer problem. >> thank you, ms. cowles and i appreciate mr. chairman boucher holding this hearing. the females illustrate relying on safety standards and i yield
back. >> thinks. if i may just one question or two. and mr. burgess will be here in a minute. let me just ask this, mr. dwyer i ask about the certified products and we talked about recalls. do you ever take a similar ads in the same magazine advertisers on the recall like on the cribs? >> i'm sorry, i didn't understand the question. >> is your association -- you put out these ads advertising these projects that their certified and with their recalled to ever take i'm not saying the southern recalled those consumers would no? >> no, we don't need specific products. >> wouldn't that be a good idea? >> i believe that several of the agency. we can communicate. we issued statements on provided statements based on when the stork craft products are recalled to help parents and concerned consumers understand the implications we link to recall governor website.
>> slathered in your website, that's all you do to let parents know that -- >> we do not take out at the magazines to promote the fact that the products are recall. this is part of a product safety campaign that involves multiple communication -- >> sure, these are all products with your seal on it. so if your seal products are being recalled i think you'd want to let people know that. >> we do communicate, but we don't take out ads in magazines. >> okay. i would like to thank the panel for their testimony. thank you, witnesses and thanks for being here. as mr. walton reminds me, we're going to a vote here pretty quick, so let's see if we can't finish up this hearing. manasseh chairperson to come forward please, the honorable
ms. tenenbaum of the consumer product safety counsel, leger record reflect that before you have your opening statement if the policy of this committee that you have the right under the wealth of the house to be at highest to be represented by counsel. please raise your right hand. >> do you swear it to make the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> let the record reflect this tenenbaum is under oath and please present your opening statement please. >> good morning, chairman stupak, ranking member walden and members of the subcommittee on oversight and investigation. the overall safety of cribs -- >> is your micron please? maker micron please. >> the overall safety of cribs is a critical concern of the
cpsc a personal priority of mine giving on case gets off the market and out of the home is always been a key part of the cpsc mission. i strongly believe we must do more and have strong federal safety standards that prevent cribs with design flaws or safety defects from ever making it into the stream of commerce and trade commerce. since the inception of the agency in 1973 the cpsc has been deeply involved in issues of ribbon and conflicting environment safety. in november 1973, the commission promoted the first mandatory safety standards governing drop side cribs. the cpsc is also worked diligently with other organizations such as the astm international code standards. these mandatory and voluntary standards come by the substantial outreach efforts have undoubtedly presented numerous infant child and just grease. one question that has arisen in some media reports is the issue of why the cpsc's current standards have not been revised
since 1982. the main answer is that the commission has limited authority to do so under section nine of the product safety act. under that section which was revised by the cpsc, the commission was generally required to rely on voluntary standards that would likely result of inadequate reduction of risk an injury and where they would be substantial compliance with the standard. this reliance on military standards worked well in many areas but it also? substantial gaps have voluntary standard developing organizations were either unwilling or unable to confront. this provision was modified by the cpsi to give additional authority for worldcom even when a voluntary standard is in existence. in addition, the cpsc also included section 104 anna danny keeps our child product safety notification act which gave new standards for 12 groups of durable infants and other products. i strongly support these additional authorities and have
directed the cpsc stockton a crib safety a key priority. starting with immediate recall of cribs that have been shown to present the substantial risk of danger and injury to children. one example of the commission's outburst or would potentially hazardous cribs from the marketplace has been the two recent recalls the stork craft drop side trades. in january 2009, said to agree to voluntary recall of a million impact of cribs for rocket defect. the cpsc was investigating instances of the drop side issue with the crib. these involved however large population of cribs with different styles of drop side hardware in a different mode of drop side failure. after my arrival at the commission i requested weekly commission briefings from the office of compliance on pending consumer product investigations. the subject of the september 24th, 2009 briefing was nursery products and
included the commission's investigation into drop side cribs. during that briefing i learned about the developing compliance case regarding site to drop side cribs as well as the tragic june 2009 death in louisiana that involved a sad to drop side crib. following this briefing i directed the staff to get immediate priority to the recall is said to cribs in this drop side hazard. in november 2003, november 23rd, 2009, set to announce the largest crib action in cpsc history. as above 2.1 sub to cribs. we also recently recalled transfix cribs because you are very well that recall. now, since these recalls and since my tenure as we needed the sleep sees initiative which a fixed point i want to talk about. and my statement this morning
i'll just talk about the highlights but then you can ask the questions later. i think the cpsc has very talented that has worked diligently for years on this issue of safe crib. i also think that we could have for a variety of reasons including funding inadequate statutory authority and competing priorities move quicker to have a mandatory and stronger voluntary standards. and i want you to know and make very clear to the subcommittee that those days are over at the cpsc. this morning i'm pleased to announce the details of the safe sleep initiative. first of all, you've heard from other speakers that the first part of this initiative is to expedite the rulemaking and have mandatory standards under section 104, for cribs. and i might add that when i came to the commission, the schedule for this rule for cribs was scheduled for 2012. when i learned about it, i pulled it in front of other roles and said we have to have the standard now.
just recently we have secured booze allen hamilton to do a top to bottom review of the cpsc and help us in this area. and mr. chairman and ricky member walden, i thank you for having this meeting. it's very important veggie show everyone involved in cribs safety how important is to you when i look forward to answering your questions. >> well, thank you. let me thank you on behalf of the whole committee and our staff or your work and cooperation in this area and also for being here all morning. he sat through other panels that we appreciate that and we think that helps and what we're trying to achieve here. you said your sleep safe sleep initiative was starting today -- >> we party started. >> you said in your testimony when stork craft was announced a retail there were millions of
people thought after. >> we went on the show and announced the recall and reason all of our social media, twitter, we estimate over 200 million had access to those television tapes. >> when we do recall here, especially like with stork craft, 2 million recalled here n-november, that's a voluntary recall. >> and is a voluntary recall. >> and you have to convince the manufacturer to do it. you don't have authority to say that they, we're recalling these cribs, correct? >> we could if we wanted to go into administrative action which would probably result in litigation and take more time. the compliance officials and lawyers at the cpsc is that jimmy fekete a voluntary recall we could get the remedy to the consumer quicker and takes less time. but you have to negotiate. >> if you look at top seven here. i want to talk a little bit about that because you have to negotiate with the company that does not believe their product is defect is.
right? >> of correct. in fact, that to maintain to this day the product does not affect it. >> still maintains that even though we recall 2 million cribs in 2009. if i understand this correctly, starting on may 6, 2009, stassen's e-mail to stork craft advising them to stop sale of drop side cribs, is that right? >> that's correct. >> is a number of entries in here about all what the stuff was doing, conversations, discussions and that wasn't really completed until about october 9, set to submit a press release and then you have negotiations of the press release begins. >> that's correct. >> that takes you six months to convince them to a do a recall, correct? >> it depends on the circumstances. >> than this one it took six months. why do we begin negotiations of
a press release? that's october 9. and it's my understanding and again i have all the entries that went through trying to negotiate a press release on the recall, which ends in children possibly died because of the effects in these cribs. and that takes us to press release issuance of october, excuse me, november 24. so that's another six weeks. >> that is correct. we negotiate every word of that press release. were required to under the company. we speak under the cpsc was amended which gives us more flexibility but we negotiate press releases. >> six weeks here. beware i say to me being a little skeptical, but this is sort of like christmas season. that's when people are buying things. teething part of the negotiation to drag out the press release
for six week is to get into the christmas season to sell more cribs better defect even been recall. >> bypassed myself i take so long 20 minute decision for recall why take six weeks. that is the standard procedure. and they produced a document for me with everything that has to be done. particularly if you're going to do a recall repair you have to manufacture the repair, test it and then inside the company to stork craft co., those decisions if you're talking about someone they have to run it all the way up to the ceo or whomever is at the level to make a decision. but it is the truth. it takes an inordinate amount of time and all during this time the consumers don't know that their crib needs repair kit. >> even after you do recall, now this is well over six months that when we started this process in six weeks to get a press release out. on top of that there's another six months i can sell the product to the american people, right?
>> once the recall is announced, we stop sales. in fact, the retailers have a way to win their computers put the number, serial number of the product. >> for mr. dwyer that we had another 680 days after that. >> now the recall will stop sale. >> okay, i had it wrong. why does it take so long? you at a number of recalls. why does it take so long? why does it it takes expense? >> it shouldn't take six month and a slanderous exhibit initiative we are going to have a safe sleep team where everyone works together, the compliance officers, attorneys, epidemiologists, engineers that we can all work together to move the case forward quicker. i think six months is too long and you can also the company is not cooperating and keeps insisting they shouldn't have a recall, we can issue a
unilateral press release, which we have threatened to do. i've also told our staff can reduce every enforcement power you need to move cases forward. don't let a company push back on you if you have the science and engineering complete and you know this is a product that needs to be recalled. said another leadership -- also is behind them in these recalls. we have also instituted since i came to the commission were once a week all five commissioners meet and we have weekly compliance briefings. and monthly compliance briefings. so we know the status of cases and can give the staff are thoughts on how urgent we think these recalls are. >> well, hopefully next in the press release doesn't take six weeks. six hours should be enough. mr. walden for questions please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chairman, i thought energy say you have the authority at cpsc to you even around very.
was the company not cooperating enough process? >> the company was at that point they were cooperating once we told him we were going to do the recall. but when it said six weeks, if it's not really -- i mean, there were other things going on in that period of time. >> what other things are going on? >> i can give you the process. i mean, first of all, you have to determine the scope of the product to be recalled. >> cpsc us to do this or the company? >> the commission has to do this. it's a two-page longer three-page long document of everything that has to occur before you can recall a case. and you've got to make sure the 800 number and website are operational. you have to test the kids. the company has to manufacture the care.
>> these are required by your rules? >> these are required to have a successful recall. >> these are drop cpsc rules wee talking about? and you can control the procedures? >> consumer product safety commission, yes. we control it but we also have to make sure the recall is done appropriately. >> i fully concur with that but with that but i'm just turn to get this issue by took six weeks to get a press release out. >> this was a staff member's note -- smacks we don't think those are accurate maybe? >> no, i'm not saying that, mr. walden. a man reflected reflected it was going on six weeks. but we do have to negotiate every word. they might go to their supervisor or to the ceo and come back to us and say we really dispute this death. so that was a good example, the death in the dorel asia case.
so when you get and whether or not you're going to mention the death, the lawyers on both sides have to get into it. you should do an investigation. we can take six weeks. it would want to nowhere going to list safeword deaths, then you have to say inside to there were four deaths. >> you think that's an unfair process? >> we have to make sure that it's correct. what i would like to see on the front-end as for us now that we are going forward and we have our team is going to be working together, i think we can shorten the part leading up to the recall. >> you think the early warning system has been toothless? do you think those were? >> the early warning system was formed after the simplicity recall in that puts together a team of people, voyeurs, compliant to look at the data
that is submitted to us. >> i'm surprised he didn't everybody in your agency to talk. >> earlier you mentioned to you, you vastly were one of the transport if they had a duty to report and they did not. and that is one of the issues. we do not get report sometimes until years after an incident has occurred. so one of the issues that we were going to say in terms of improving the process, which would take probably statutory authority is to require state to report events to last. medical examiner's reports. we purchase. we work with other -- we worked voluntarily with hospitals. we have a nice system. we have a number of ways we go through press releases. but i mean, newspapers. we do everything to find out
about instances. but there's no duty to report from the state corners are medical examiners. >> thank you, that's helpful information to look as we go through. i just got 45 seconds left here and we've got those. let me ask you this. is it the industry trade group's duty to come up with these new standards or if there is a gap in safety, and is at cpsc's duty to put an mandatory standards? you have that authority, your predecessors have that authority. you can step in and put a standard and that says, we're not going to have drop site cribs or were not going to have this type of manufacturing process, right? >> i think the astm should always have state-of-the-art robust standards for all the products. but they also see when you see patterns of this kind that go on for years then it's time for the cpsc before it gets displayed to the mandatory standard. that is why when i came to the commission we started looking at
the cribs. we change the schedules of this year will have the mandatory standard. we asked the astm, i called and personally got them on the phone, you need to work with us to have the best voluntary standard possible. they voluntarily said yes without to work with you. they came and spent yesterday and the day before and worked all day long. and they've come to the agreement that we need to increase the wood quality. now it's a 50-pound standard. they agree to an 86 pounds standard. we need to attest the hardware, giving the canadian wracking not say. i understand that's 9000 times the hardware is put under status to be tested. the outlaw wooden skewers and they also talked about other issues that would make a voluntary standard with us. >> thank you for your work and for your response to the questions.
>> ms. schakowsky for questions, please. >> so let me get it clear. we are going to have a mandatory standard for cribs that will prohibit drop side? >> yes ma'am, we will. it will be 2010. we hope by early summer to have the nt are published in the federal register. richard 75 days of comments and then we will have the standard by the end of the year. we're also pushing to astm to adopt voluntary standards with this you the good thing about having a mandatory standard as you put in the cpsi and will be retroactive. it will cover cribs entering public cribs like hotels and childcare facilities for the job site will be banned in public places. are we still worry about cribs and homes they continue to other topsides. >> and in the meantime, however going to keep these cribs -- are
>> supposedly the astm has been found. and that's the direct your -- >> manufacturer. but not all of them have been recalled? >> i don't think every crib has been recalled. but it has banned prospectively. i'll have to get that you are not. >> put under cpsc, what does that take us to? through the 75 day comment period. >> i would hope to have a mandatory role done and i hope we can do it soon. and the work that has been done the last two days by the astm should allow us to have information plus the agency put out in 2008. so we are going to try as fast as possible to have this done. >> okay, i want to get the letters right.
the -- >> doreljpma. >> they voted against having a standard. and try to understand the relationship of the industry. and for a long time i've been concerned about the issue for example of these press releases. and i understand of course getting the accuracy. but it doesn't take that long to figure out if someone -- of the child has died or four children have died. and the fact that the industry doesn't want that in a press release, who cares. why do we have to negotiate that? why should it take so long? if this is a thread of life, do we have to do more? how does our new outcome of the improvement act, change the
world about these press releases? >> well, i'll give you an example. this just weak we recalled dorel asia in the today show another morning shows a very helpful to us and they say we will announce this so people can get the word on this. and we had it that in the press release that child had died. the people representing dorel asia were talking to tom castello until right before he went on the air saying do not mention that death. and so, that is how we have to deal with this. and he mentioned it because we asked them to. >> well, under the new act, he said there's been some improvements and not. what has been improved? >> well, under six pikachu shortened the period of time. but still the negotiations about whether or not i doubt that the cost of the hardware or some
salt of the consumer and that goes back and forth and we have to be really hard about pushing forward that were going to list the stats. >> i think we really have to do something about that. don't you think the impact of a statement, where death has occurred is much more powerful than -- >> yes. if you're in as your child can tragically died by being entrapped. they will go in the room and look at that crib immediately we hope. or even when a child is injured and we can show parents, this is not something that you can fix yourself. please get the repair kit. and if it's the crib is in such bad shape, please do not use it. >> i've got to cut you off good mr. burgess has two minutes left. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you commissioner for being here today.
i know we have a request in your office to have a meeting and i hope are able to have that soon. mr. chairman, who also say having taken a trip to the testing facility at cpsc, i would encourage a field hearing of the testing facility sometime. i think it's important for us to see how they do a good job with really sometimes are pretty rudimentary tools. and if we behave ourselves maybe they'll let us custom of the toys that we promise that you break them. now, you have said -- i'm a little confused by youth in the manufacturer drop side cribs. >> astm hassan will put them in a mandatory standards. >> who needs to ban the import? >> what the astm is a voluntary standard in their same in the standard, which they voted on in december 2000 that it will no longer meet standards of its drop side. we will have a role this year
and i don't want to whine but i want to tell you we have had 48 federal register notices since the passage of the cpsc. there's so many roles under that we push board that fat by it take so want to finish these roles. it anyway, i'm sorry. >> some of the things we've gone through before with the lead up was the problem we have with stuff that is made overseas in china been brought to this country that doesn't make our standards. if it's defined by the drop side that is the problem, that it doesn't matter where it's made in my opinion if it's made overseas, that we should not allow its import. now what do we have to do with the world trade organization and all of our treaties and borders that, what do we do to keep those kids from coming into being sold in retail outlets? >> if we banned the drop side, we could stop at the port.
and we will and the rule. >> which is going to happen? >> in 2010. >> and turn it was originally scheduled in 2012 and we have expedited that moved about 22010. >> the notes i have new u.s. consumer product commission safety general counsel required actions pursuant to the consumer product safety act of 2008 and this is dated september 2008, that we would do this by august 2009. i guess that's what a little bit? >> i guess it did. the durable nursery equipment items there were 12 of them. baby bath and baby walkers. >> shouldn't cribs be on the top of that 12. >> cribs in my opinion, yes. that's why expedited it. we on this committee can expect you to issue a mandatory ban on dockside cribs sometime in 2010? yes, sir and i will be applied
per cribs in public places such as childcare facilities and hotel rooms. butterworth applied to dance in homes. so the consumer would still have it under section 104. >> will they still be able to go to a retail outlet and purchase one? >> no. >> with a retailer be able to import one for sale? >> no, not after we say they don't meet the standards. >> that will be able to stop those at the border? >> yes, sir. >> what -- let me just ask you, one of the things we struggled with during the run-up to the bill in 2008 was the funding and personnel level at cpsc. where are we with that now? >> well, where the level of having 530 ftes, full-time equivalents and we now employed
as of today 479. do we have 45 recruitments in the process of being hired. and it's our goal to be at the top of the 530 this year. >> now, we were given nancy noris and mr. moore at the funding levels providing cpsc in past years were not satisfactory those were increased. what actions are you taking now that we're going to be the tough budget year. it's going to be real tough. and yet, this is one of the more important functions. but still very level on the totem pole things get funded. what actions are you taking to make sure your funding does not slip? >> well, when we go and meet personally with a one b. and i go myself to talk to them how important it will be to be able to implement the cbs eye and other statutes i asked him to hold her agency heartless. and so, i said $10 million to
the cpsc is a tremendous amount, $10 million to make an agency would not have the same effect. and we keep demonstrating to them how we're using it. also at pusan allen hamilton which does strategic plan for us, they will be looking at what additional resources we need or how we've are seeing resources to accomplish our goal, which is keeping consumer safe. >> i would just say don't forget your friends on this committee at the appropriators are treating me squarely. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i conclude solver question. i ask unanimous consent mr. waxman and the attachment be made part of the record. and that concludes all question. i want to thank governor says for their testimony. the world can be provided that no members have up up to ten days to submit additional
questions for the record. another question that they either to report deaths and injuries and after you do a recall we've seen going in the stores there's no notifications are there's going to be other questions will follow probably with you, madam chairperson. so i ask unanimous consent that the contents of a document be entered in the record provided that committee staff made reback any concerns about privacy or proprietary bonds for certain sensitive issues. that document, documents be entered in the record. the subcommittees adjourned. thank you offer being here. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] .. host: mark moyar is the author
of the book "a question of command." he is also a national security professor at the marine corps university. you are in afghanistan for 10 days, returned, were invited by the military. why? guest: they wanted me to speak as part of a new leadership initiative set up by william caldwell who has been in charge of training. they are focusing on the leadership side of the afghan to cure the forces. that is one piece that we have sort of neglected. we have focused more on producing afghan to cure the forces, and they are looking at ways to fix the leadership problem. although we produce big numbers, we have not had a performance that we would like the general is looking at ways that we can fix these leadership problems. since i had just written a book
on counterinsurgency leadership, they thought it would be useful for me to see what was going on and to speak to the afghans about their leadership issues. host: what did you find? guest: on the afghan side, the military is doing well with their new officers. there military academy in very impressive. they have good recruitment systems. they also have an ocs that that has been struggling a bit, officer candidate school. they have had problems with that because a lot of the instructors were not troubling up. -- showing up. on the police side, they are struggling. they are sort of taking anyone that they can get, but we are improving now.
i think we will see some success, although there is some dispute about the defense contract, dynacore, who has been there and has not been doing as well as we would like. you may recall, they have also been doing work in iraq. there were some problems there as well. that could be something that we need to keep an eye on. a lot of the problems we have seen in the past, in iraq and afghanistan, have unfortunately, been the result of the state department that is understaffed. i think in afghanistan, after eight years, we are finally moving in the right direction. host: what are some of the challenges that you found? guest: one of the big things is
getting enough people on the nato side. they are still several thousand short. host: these are nato security official that would be training afghan officials? guest: that is right. there is a military force in italy that is helping helout. some of the nato countries have still not ponied up the people. there are some diplomatic efforts going on right now to get them to live up to their commitments. host: what about literacy rates in the afghan ranks? guest: they are getting enough, for the most part, in leadership ranks, but below that, that is an issue. especially with the police, where they are trying to get them to do the administrative work.
you have few people that are literate, they end up getting tied down with the paperwork instead of doing the leadership job today are supposed to. host: part of their training is teaching them to read basic things, like a map, instructions for a gun. guest: that is right. in the rush to create people, we are shortening the training cycle we had people coming out of training who did not know how to read a map. that is a challenge. they are expanding on the leadership side. up until recently, the state department put together an eight-week program, and they were making people police leaders, and that is far too short. host: who did you meet one of you were over there? guest: i got to meet with general colin l. andal lot of the nato officers.
-- caldwell and a lot of the nato officers. general mcchrystal. we met with some afghan defense ministers. as well, some of the commanders in the field. host: did he meet with these top officials before or after you saw what was going on? guest: it was some of each. it will spread out over the period. they are very much on top of these problems, and fully recognize what the challenges are ahead. we still had a lot of problems that we have to work through with the afghans with, and in the past, we have said too much that they can do things as they please. i think we recognize that they need more help, especially in terms of leadership. host: what are some of the
comparison you can draw between iraq and afghanistan? cast, i spoke to the military academies, police trainers, and we focus on leadership stories. they are a culture that likes narratives. we went through a variety of case studies, also some of our own. we do not want to come across as being holier than thou. we showed some examples of where things went well, where things did not go well. there was one example where a general appointed all of his friends, did not give them much responsibility, proper orders. then someone else comes in to fix all these problems of corruption. we focused on all lot of cases to show them that this was not a
unique problem to afghanistan and this is how other countries have dealt with it. we looked at the philippines. you had a corrupt government, and they were not doing well against the insurgency. then you had the president, and and got rid of officers who were not doing their job and insisted that they respected the population, insisted nepotism would no longer be tolerated. host: you wrote this book "a question of command" and from what we understand, it has caused quite a stir in military leadership. were you surprised? guest: a little bit. i think it depends on which service you look at. i work with the marine corps, studied the army allowed, but i think the marine corps
traditionally met here to a position less dependent on doctrine. sometimes we get caught up on the doctrine and it is much more about the individual commander. historically, the marines have done that. the army is moving to that. general petraeus is leading that charge. one of the things and i tried to fight against is standardization. even with the counterinsurgency manual, there are some good things, but people took that and try to apply a checklist approach to the things that you have to do. i have found that that does not really get you far. it is good to learn basics, but when you alton and look at 1 counterinsurgency succeeded, it is ultimately a function of leadership.
host: is it the leadership of the u.s., the iraqi officials, in this case, afghani officials? guest: it is both. right now, we have the americans doing a lot of counterinsurgency work, and they are partnering with afghans and providing some leadership. so they are very important. long term is what is important. turning things over to them. we are getting their police and military leaders up to speed. it really comes down to local politics. can they provide security? can they provide governance in a way that does not abuse the population? time and again, you find it is the mistreatment of the individual, not some ideological cause.
most of times it is because the police beat up my son, or something. they stole the public funds. trying to get at those problems goes down to the character of individual leaders. host: we are speaking with mark moyar, the author of a counterinsurgency book. first phone call from barbara, democrat line. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about health care, but i can talk about this. i retired in 2003 and i have seen everything on tv that has come up. i read "hostile takeover." you have halliburton, all these people making lots of money, and they do not have to pay anything back. you have dick cheney, george bush involved.
it is terrible. if you would get rid of the poppy seed, we would cut have to protect them. number two, you cannot have an army of people who do not have an education. host: take that last point. can you have an effective leadership without education? guest: you do need to have educated leadership. that is crucial. there are enough afghans with the education levels that we need. unfortunately, we are trying to get a lot of them into the government, and that can be problematic. at the basic level, we are bringing people from high school, now going after the top graduates and afghan high schools. i can there is enough of an educated population there to provide the necessary leadership.
you are not going to have every policemen reading, but the taliban, a lot of them cannot read but they are doing pretty well. i do not see that as an obstacle we cannot overcome. host: what about offering money to afghanis to invest? specifically, these top graduates? are they being paid a higher amount of money? guest: they are now, and that is the point of contention. physicians are being paid less than people in the security force, unfortunately. we have had to do that because the taliban pays well. there is also the question of, can we pay the entire tribes to join our side, as we did in iraq? in some cases, yes. unfortunately, in some cases we pay a warlord to join our side, but they end up doing things to
other tribes that force them to go to the other side. host: what is the tactic of having these tribes come together in afghanistan, under one roof? guest: there is still allowed no discussion. people say we need to focus on tried to. others say we have to focus on individual villages. i think when we are starting to see bluis in need to be handledn a provincial structure. i think it will be handled on an ad hoc, individual basis. host: cal on the republican line. caller: i think that woman on the democrat line forgot about what the war is about. this is a real war.
two airplane to the world trade center. that hit us financially. the third plan that had the pentagon, that was meant to destroy our military. the third airplane that crashed in pennsylvania bus to go to the white house. this is a war. this is no different than when the japanese had pearl harbor. i think we have to remember that. what we want to do is make sure that we are still a free country, too. host: any thoughts? guest: that is a good point. that is kind of why we have been able to sustain a certain amount of support for afghanistan, that memory of 9/11. it is interesting, some people seem to forget that. i think the christmas day bomber was a wake-up call and has
bought back to many americans the reality that there are these terrorists plotting against us. if they have safe haven where they can go, that is to their advantage, and they will be able to get through security systems. in this case, we are fortunate that there bomb did not work as intended. host: philadelphia. bob on the independent line. caller: mr. moyar, how is it that the afghan army, that we are paying for and training, how come we have a difficult time getting quality recruits? the insurgency does the team to have quality individuals. who is training the insurgency? how come they are so darn good? is this because we have a bunch
of paid mercenaries who have no self-respect? guest: that is a good question. one of the things i looked at, how can we look at the taliban and see how they recruit their leaders? they have some good people on their side. one part that need to be looked at further it is the role of foreigners in their leadership. they are certainly a significant element in terms of leadership and training. at the junior levels, we are seeing some good afghan officers. there are problems at the middle and upper levels. part of the problem was there was a gap in 1990 and after 2001 where there was no professional education. the generation before that was trained by the soviets with some very centralized models that do not work well.
leaders. we have tried to mass-produced these leaders quickly and we have found it takes time. to fix the police, maybe five years. an afghan national army has been more of a b. on the u.s. side, there are some units that are a +. there are others that are doing a terrific job in helmand province. others in the b, c range. again, it comes down to the commanders. we do not have anyone that is really awful, but some are not as innovative, do not take the
initiative. i think risk aversion has been one of the problem that we have had. people are afraid to take risks so they rely too much on armored vehicles, stay behind last wallace, as opposed to being held in the population host. host: phoenix. republican line. caller: i recently read "war and peace" and read a lot about recent military efforts. there is sort of this secret x factor that is not always equipment or strategy, tactics, generals, or even the number of forces that we have, but it is the spirit of the force that is fighting. with the deployment of this land, i wonder about the spirit
of our military forces and whether the most critical factor cannot help but be blamed. guest: it is certainly an important consideration. based on my time spent over there, and teaching, i think we have been surprisingly resilient. it has taken some wear on our military, and unfortunately, we have a small group of people that are going through this again and again. people talk a lot about morale but often do not look at the sources of morale. i have found it often comes down to leadership. if you have a good captain, lieutenant-colonel, the morale
in that unit will be very high typically, even if they know they have been there for a long time, and will be for awhile. especially on the afghan side. the number one cause of desertion on the afghan side is that leadership. -- bad leadership. if they have good leaders, they will have a fighting spirit. this is why we need to help the afghans get more of the dedicated fighters into their leadership ranks and remove some of the people who do not deserve to be there. host: hagerstown, maryland. rich on the republican line. caller: you are all right. democrats, republicans. i am a real american. it has to come from leadership. we had a bush, now we have
president obama. the thing is, everyone is blaming bush. you have to understand, my opinion, when bush took office, clinton was in charge, right? i indicated now because my kids are going to college. thank god for that. obama's said he inherited all this. he inherited the united states of america. isn't that wonderful? that is what he inherited. when clinton was in office, he balanced the budget, but he took all the money out of the military. there was no war. i am a senior citizen and i am really getting educated now. i have all lot of time to read. i do not want to say too
much, but obama needs to lead. guest: this is my opinion, not the of the government, but i think is important for the president to get out there and keep stating the reason we are fighting in afghanistan. we saw that in december. but i think more of that would be helpful to keep the people aware of why we are fighting. i have written a couple of books on vietnam we solve this problem -- books on vietnam. we solve this problem where they did not go up to the people to get them motivated to stay for the long haul. that ultimately came back to haunt us because people did not understand my we were there, they did not see the need for sacrifice. hopefully, we will see more comments coming from the white
house in terms of explaining our commitment and rounding people around the cause. host: louisiana. teddy on the independent line. caller: you have not gotten in right in eight years, and he won five more? you have not gotten anything right. 9/11, you say? what are you going to do when you find out that seven of the alleged hijackers from 9/11 were interviewed on bbc and our allies. what are you going to do when i saw the testimony, on c-span, the christmas day bomber was allowed by our intelligence agencies to get on that airplane. did they know he had a bomb on him when our government allowed him to get on the airplane? host: what about his sentiment.
you said you agree with the president of afghanistan's assessment that it is more like five more years. how do the american people get behind that after eight years? guest: that is a tough question. the president sent his that people's patients -- aptiencpat. i think we will still have a major presence. i think everyone in the government acknowledges that we are going to have a large presence there five years from now. again, a lot of it requires the president and senior leaders explain to the american people why this is going to work and emphasizing -- it is a good question. we have been there for a long
time, we have not succeeded, so what will it be different? i think we are taking some positive steps down to finally fixed afghanistan's leadership problems. also by sending additional troops, we can cover more territory. up until now we go to one area, the taliban fleas, we come back, and -- flees, we go away, then they come back. there is one town in helmand province, this is their big sanctuary area. we are going to stop them from using the sort of centuries. host: there is an "washington post" article talking about the strategy in afghanistan with the fifth striker brigade combat team, to burn your freedom of movement on the highways.
-- to further freedom of movement on the highways. it says not everyone is sold on the protect the population mantra. your thoughts on those two different approaches? guest: i think you do have to combine offense and defense. that is one of the problems i found with a lot of our counterinsurgency doctrines. probably one of the reasons why the book has attracted attention. there are two major thoughts on counterinsurgency. one where you focus on the population, and governance, local economic development. then the other where you go after the enemy, even when there are not near the population.
i argue that you have to do both. the theory that i bring up is a leader-centric theory that says it is not so much which you focus on, but the quality of your leaders. it is very much a case to case basis. you will have to do some population control, because if not, insurgents will get support. at the same time, you have to go after the enemy, ostensibly, because if they -- ostensibly, because if you do not, they will be able to attack you. even people like general petraeus, i do not think it is well recognized, they did population control, but they also did offensive operations. they hunted the enemy down. in addition to inflicting casualties, they kept the enemy
on the run. insurgents, when we came after them, they had to move every 24 hours, we could not rest and recuperate so there needs to be a combination of that. host: marty on the democrat line. caller: a lot of people do not look at history. one issue i see is you cannot go into some of these countries, as the u.s. did, like when we fought with the russians. you expect to get the best of people when you do something like this. that is why you give the insurgents who are the best fighters to justify what we have done. another thing that makes sense is that you have to work with the infrastructure and get the people to see that this is for their benefit.
that is what i think we need to look at, the history of what goes on in these countries and why these problems start wars. you promise people one thing and then you take it away. host: could you shed some light on history? guest: there is a fair amount of resentment that we abandoned afghanistan after the war with the soviets. . .
having americans working more with afghans now has actually helped prevent some of the abuses of power that we have seen. the past is an impediment, but most of the afghans are more focused on, what have you done for me lately? host: you wrote in a "new york times" piece about judging versus intuitive thinking. what the differences? guest: their personality types from the myers briggs personality test. there are 16 different groups of personalities. four fall into each of those categories.
people who are not going to innovate as much. they will not take the same kind of risks. they now embracwd the conferene and should see a doctor in,ñr bt it was meant to be adapted -- they now embrace the counterinsurgency doctrine, but that was meant to be adapted. they're not able to handle the changing environment. the biggest problem is the risk- aversion. i did a survey, and it was that the battalion in company levels, the most important demand levels. does your service promote risk- taking? in the army, only 20% said yes
and 58% said no. that is shocking. 58% in the marine corps said service did promote risk-taking. again, this leads to moving around in very large groups, which cuts your ability to do anything. traveling in armored vehicles which prevents you from talking to the population. that is a big hurdle. there is a struggle within the army right now. petraeus is more on the intuitive thinking said, pushing for this type of leadership. a lot of the old card -- old guard in the judgment. i think we will see that play out in the next years and i hope the intuitive-thinking side will prevail. host: florida, republican line. caller: i am calling to see if you have read greg martin son's boat "3 cups of tea?"
guest: yes, i have. caller: what did you think of that in his approach to establishing schools? guest: i think it is very good. another case of an individual showing leadership and making a big difference. one thing i would caution is that sometimes we think that if we just build the schools, all the other problems are going to go away. unfortunately, what we have seen in many cases is you have an effort like this, and the insurgents are recognize it is a threat, and they come in and kill all the schoolteachers. so you have to have the security component to go along with that. in the long term, it is very important to have the education peace because that is where you're going to educate your leaders of the future. and what they're doing in terms of education is a very good. that is something that will take 10 to 15 years to bear fruit.
so we need to support that. but at the same time, recognize we have to focus in the shorter term on building and security forces, building up local administration. host: florida, independent line. caller: hello. if these people in the bush administration had understood in the lessons of history, we would not have been in afghanistan on the ground, and we would not have been in iraq on the ground. iraq and iran were so busy fighting each other, they were not worried about us. all we did was undercut the rocks ability to keep iran in check. i do not know when washington is going to understand the lessons of vietnam. you do not invade a country to win their hearts and mind. if can and invaded the united states, all of the democrats would have been other to protect george bush.
and so would have all the independents. it is not make a difference. you did not win hearts and minds that way. you do not win hearts and minds by paying people. we are a democracy, and we're supposed to be promoting it around the world. but you have to pay people to fight and spread around freedom? guest: there is a major difference in that regard between iraq and afghanistan. the case for afghanistan was more compelling because of 9/11. i do think they did try more so in afghanistan and iraq to pay attention to history. the lesson they took away was that you do not want to have a big foreign presence, as the soviets did. you'll in your the population. so we helped bring karzai to power. initially we were going to have a very small presence there. we were going to rely on afghans to deal with security, and we empower these tribal warlords
which seems to be the best people to do that. unfortunately, it has not worked out. we had several years that were relatively peaceful. when everyone thought things were going great. things deteriorated since 2005. mostly because of failures in the afghan government. so we're now stepping in there. certainly not ideal conditions, but at the same time, and think few americans would be willing to get out of afghanistan if it meant a return to things like 9/11. it is problematic, and we have a lot of other vulnerabilities. >> detroit, democratic line. caller: good morning. i would like to ask a quick question about what the pipeline
is going to the afghanistan mountains, how that affects our presence there. i would like to comment about the common thinking from conservatives or right-winger is that clinton tore down the military. that is not true factually. the military budget was set by congress which was controlled by republicans. i think dick cheney voted for the decrease in military spending. to the contrary, clinton was trying to get through the counter-terrorism bill which republicans stripped down. it is, in the thinking -- it is, and the -- it is common thinking. why did we send 10,000 soldiers to afghanistan when that is where osama bin laden was and wasn't 160,000 men into iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11? guest: new mentioned the
logistics pipeline. there are areas in afghanistan where we are paying off warlords who are paying the taliban or people affiliated with the taliban to preserve our logistical lines, because we're very dependent on fuel and food and all sorts of stuff coming through. there's probably, in the short term, that is necessary because we cannot do without those. unfortunately, we are assisting the local taliban. ultimately, we want to put an end to that. as the go along, we're starting to destroy the sanctuaries. and the others sanctuary areas will ultimately have to go into and squelch those as well. host: georgia, republican line. caller: how are you doing?
host: good morning. caller: the idea behind the money. where is this money coming from for the taliban? hostguest: are you talking aboue money paid to protect our logistical line? hoscaller: for the taliban. we're talking about paying them. guest: we're talking about paying them with u.s. money. they also have their own money cercis through poppy. part of what we're going to helmand province is to cut out some of the poppy revenue. but again, you have to be very careful because some of these people will say they are going to support us, and then it will take our money and continue the things they were doing. and certainly, in casesñiñr that can more,ñi as it worked in ira,
it is a province-by-province. ñihost: this is our last phone call, from maryland. caller:ñi hello. good morning. i have a question for you, mark. one of the ultimatums that afghanistan's government had as far as osama bin laden was that pretty much is the u.s. wanted a national hero of theirs to pretty much shows prove that he has done these names that you does accuse them of, then we will turn him over. we pretty much refused and said we're gong to come in. what will we not just that -- why did we just not show them the proof that he did commit these things, which would have kind of averted this war that we're going through but yet, we kinda said no and we will go in anyways?
guest: you're talking about in 2001 when we ask them to turn over bin laden, i think. i mean, i think we had a pretty compelling case at that time, and i think we did make some effort to get them to turn over osama bin laden. there were not willing to go along with that. there's a lot of talk today now about how,ñi well, maybe taliban and al qaeda are not really close. we can split them off from one another. but clearly, the top levels, senior taliban leaders are still very close to al qaedaçóçóñii]we çóso maybe if they're not a lare a cut a presence in afghanistan -- now, if you saw the taliban retake powower, i
from the georgetown university law center in washington, this is one hour and five minutes. >> our next panel is going to be on the citizens united case and i have the pleasure of introducing our moderator. my place you can't hear? okay. all right. i had the pleasure of introducing the moderator for the next panel, tony mauro, supreme court correspondent for the national law the journal. tony has been a good friend. he's moderated for us before. he has a number of fine credentials to his credit but i want to mention now before he starts, just one. he's on the advisory board for the masters study in the program for journalists. and one of the things that is very important in increasing public understanding of the courts and of the judiciary is for reporters to really
understand the beat they are covering and georgetown in setting up this program is educating reporters on the law and judicial decisions so they are able to convey the information to the public. we are all very delighted that there are few in the greenhouse's in the world who are able to describe the activities to the supreme court, so very well and we are hoping through programs like this we will get more. thank you for that and i will turn over to you. >> all right. thank you, maryland. thanks to george kind aspen institute for this panel which as was said earlier is very timely. our subject is the citizens united decision on which the eink is barely dry. last week we were getting a little nervous that the decision wouldn't come down in time for this panel and that we would have to spend one hour engaged
in the rank speculation which would have been part of the course in washington anyway, but for better or worse, we do actually have a decision on something concrete to talk about the 5-4 decision written by justice kennedy who else was mentioned earlier also wrote the decision. there's been strong immediate reaction to the citizens united ruling much of it focused on its impact on federal law and federal campaigns. but there will certainly be ramifications for the state elections and state judicial elections as we have heard already in the first panel. we had a large panel and i want to get right to their comments and they will be talking about the citizens united in general and as well as the impact on the state courts, and it's a great panel indeed. first, i will hand over to baron
who gave one in this morning's of his page. he's been the go to guy for the reporters like me for years as a fair minded expert on campaign finance law we and he's got a particular knowledge about this case having written an amicus brief on the winning side for the chamber of commerce of the united states. he's a partner in the firm of d.c.. >> thank you, tony. good morning, everybody. i think i can summarize citizens united but i think it is important to make sure we are all agreed on some of the terms that are crucial to the decision. first of all, as you are familiar with campaign contributions that is a legal term which means providing money
or something in kind to a political party. campaign contributions are highly regulated as a result of the bulkeley decision. they are subject to limitations, whether judicial races or under the federal law for campaigns for president, senate or the house, and in the case of corporations and unions are prohibited even today after the citizens united case. the second important term is independent expenditure. we've had already some references to that in the earlier panel. under federal law we the expenditure is a form of art as well and it refers to spending by somebody independent if a candidate or political party and it is for advertising public time indications that contained what the law refers to as words
expressed efficacy. words that explicitly advocate the election or defeat of the and identified candidate is the phrase. we call them sometimes the magic words, vote for comedy feet so and so and things of that sort. and then suffered important term is an electioneering communication. this was something that was created in the mcain-feingold law, the bipartisan act and an electioneering communication since 2002 is a public communication that to a certain audience through certain transmission under the federal law it is television, radio, cable or satellite communications and the content of which merely refers to a candidate or political party and this communication is disseminated the third 30 days before a primary election were 60 days before a general
election and the communications as mccain-feingold are prohibited or were prohibited until thursday by a corporation or labor unions or using the corporate money. so, what did citizens united and its decision to? christa baala did nothing to the contributions. corporate contributions under the federal law are still prohibited. they cannot give money to any candidate and can't spend money in collaboration with candidates because i would be a contribution and that is prohibited. the court reversed its decision in the mcconnell versus fcc to the communications. there wasn't much to reverse however because after the mcconnell decision, the supreme court wisconsin right to life concluded the selection airing
them couldn't be applied to issue advertising and as a result after that ruling and before mcain-feingold, you may have seen on your television lots of ads financed by corporations and unions that and with this charming phrase you know, call candidate jones and tell them that to stop raising taxes or to support health care reform and things of that sort. issue advertising. no magic words. then with the court's decision of citizens united did was declared corporations and unions may use the magic words and their independent communications. they can say vote for or defeat the candidate. that required reversing the 1998 opinion michigan versus chamber of commerce which held that a michigan statute that did that was constitutional under the first amendment.
but as i have said, they're has been a lot of advertising up to the risque already financed by corporations and unions in fact there's a number of articles about the massachusetts special election race where unions and corporations before the citizens united case spent at least $3 million for advertising of the sort i just described. so the immediate effect technically of the citizens united case is to allow corporations and unions if they want to independently financed public advertising that make now say vote for or defeat the naim candidate. any spending for those types of expenditures, any -- excuse me, spending for those types of ads, whether they are independent expenditures or electioneering communications under federal law are subject to disclosure and
have to file reports with the commission. let me just conclude my preliminary analysis or discussion of the decision by noting that in the context of the state elections, the effect whatever it may be of this decision will be less than it is that the federal level. because 26 states and the district of columbia have no provision on independent corporate union spending. it did not even before the citizens united. so, the decision will affect those 24 states that prohibit independent expenditures and there are approximately 14 states that since mccain-feingold adopted the so-called electioneering communication provision and in those states they will have to amend their law to accommodate the supreme court decision.
>> before i move on in a sentence or to what has been the experience in those states that have not had the limitations on corporate expenditures? >> in the brief he mentioned we filed on behalf the chamber of commerce, we addressed the experience of the 26 states in the district of columbia, and these states are varied. they include virginia and illinois and california and washington state and oregon, states we might think of as good government states and there are those that are perhaps a little more questionable, and there are two studies that have been undertaken. one in california and one in washington state. examining the volume of independent spending and where
it occurred. in california there were apparently 12th state senate races over a period of almost a decade where there was substantial independence pending and as under the federal law that is subject to disclosure under the state law. the number one finance years of the independent spending for individuals, wealthy individuals. number two were labor unions. number three were indian tribes and then there were a couple of corporate contributors, 12 races. in seven of those 12th races, the candidates who were the purported subject of negative advertising won.
and this is a study that encompasses essentially approximately over that period of time 1,000 races. so, the evidence suggests that number one, there's not a whole lot of independent advertising, wed again this is not addressing talking about congressional races that there's a little more evidence on judicial races within the congressional races for the legislative races, the experience in those states that don't have these types of provisions is that it doesn't happen often and when it does happen it does not involve corporations and to a lesser extent not even to a greater extent unions it tend to be individuals who finance beestings and other players, and it is not determinative the outcome of the race. >> thank you.
next we will hear from karl spence, from 1998 to 2002, and he is of counsel to the former perkins. he will get all its related to the corporate governance and shareholder rights coming out of the decision, and i meant to mentioned earlier we would like to keep these opening remarks to five minutes. >> first i want to thank meryl for the opportunity to speak today and hope to bring a somewhat different perspective to this than the one that you have seen in of heads and editorials since the decision last thursday. i was pretty pleased with two aspects of the case. first the court broadly upheld the disclosure and in doing so recognize the importance of the disclosure to shareholders. i think that you understand the disclosure broadly to include a
disclaimer requirements, solicitation restrictions and reporting to the federal the frattali agencies and to the shareholders. second, the court recognizes protecting shareholders was a legitimate government interest that could be pursued through other regulatory ban should corporate speech. i think it's likely commerce and state legislature will reduce the two avenues to bring greater transparency and accountability to the corporate political spending. and i believe shareholders will try to do the same. turning to the aspects of the decision which i find disconcerting, first the decision proceeds from a largely unexamined premise that the modern corporations are best understood as organizations and individuals that freely choose to associate with one another. a large publicly traded companies hardly fit the description. by one estimate, 66% of publicly traded companies are owned
institutionally. it takes a lot imagination to think of calpers, the sovereign both funds, saudi arabia and china, the group, the ntia craft and vanguard as collections of freely associated individuals. thinking to myself as 70% really associated water molecules. i am not sure where automated trading systems didn't to this world the court has constructed. second the decisions suggest the minority or the dissenting shareholders can sell their interest if they disagree with the decision of management. this is not the case for beneficial owners of stock. let's stop there a moment for the beneficial owners of stock. i imagine there are more beneficial owners of exxon stock than voters in the state of california. among those would be a federal employee who places his
corporations are managed enterprises that accumulate capital for the purpose of maximizing profits to the shareholders. it is these very attributes when applied to politics to pose a danger to the political and economic marketplace that the court chose to disregard. what motivates a corporation to spend? history teaches corporations stand to stifle competition, to privatize public goods, to prevent or impede regulation and allow managers to enjoy the benefits of private friend seeking. 73% of individual shareholders believe that corporations spending is most often undertaken to advance a private political interest of managers. what else do we expect of them? if i was a retiree who told at&t stock when it was a monopoly i certainly would want the company to spend to protect that
monopoly. it is not surprising the biggest corporate centers in 1904 were trusts. corporations that spend publicly are motivated and the it differently than you and me. seldom do you see individuals contribute large sums of money to both political parties. corporate pac money i believe 92% goes to the incumbents. the court has taken the metaphor of the marketplace of ideas and brought the laissez-faire economics to it. is this supposed to be on judicial elections. what should a corporation consider? should be the expected return of the spending just discounted by the likelihood of success? what else do we expect of corporations? i would like to end just with a quote from one of the resupply route from president roosevelt.
the fortunes of the corporate organizations are now so large and invest such power in those that yield them as to make it a matter of necessity to the sovereign, that is to the government which represents the people as a whole. some affect the power of supervision over their corporate views and i would suggest the court is the one who usurp that responsibility. >> thank you. next he will hear from bradley smith, professor of law at capital university law school in columbus ohio and former member and chairman of the fec. he said some provocative ideas about campaign reform for many years and he will talk to us about the citizens united case and its impact on states. >> thank you, tony and georgetown and the aspen institute for having us here.
as was pointed out of 26 states that even before citizens united allowed unlimited independent expenditures, 28 states allowed some level of independent expenditures and those comprised of about 60% of the united states population. so i would emphasize that point but i don't think in certain ways this is this leap into one chartered waters in fact of those states, depue senter ranks states every couple of years on their government and now they are using a set of criteria that doesn't go much to the substantive policy that how well governed the states are but because they are a group that has also funded reform efforts in campaign finance because they are choosing relatively non-partisan criterium, i think it is a good measurement and an indicative won the top six states in the rankings are the six best governed states in america are the six states that allow unlimited independent expenditures even prior to last thursday's decision. additionally we have experienced
a lower federal government that is prior to 2002, that is throughout the 1990's and 1980's corporations could make these issue ads that jan baran talked about earlier and was an article of faith argued vigorously in the courts by my colleague here, fred wertheimer and others there is no difference between the issue eds and express. they were the scene and had the same impact on public policies. okay let's assume that is true. then have the plates shifted so much with thu's decision or are we simply back to the pre-2002 status quo? and if that is the case do we really want to sit around and say boy government since 2002 has been a lot better than it was in the 1990's and the 1980's? things are a lot better now. aren't we lucky gang of people. i don't think we think that. i think most people think that the heyday in the 1990's were
some of the best times this country has been through in recent years. i think it needs to be pointed out the government clearly had to lose citizens united. there's no way the government could have won citizens united and it's amazing to me that the four justices of the government should have won citizens united. i expect some of the liberal members of the court to concur in the judgment will disagree with overruling but they didn't which i find interesting and interesting to their claims that the court could have done may be something less. none of them found a way to something less. why did the government had to lose? the government's position was, and this was not abandoned at any point despite what fred will tell you the government position was the government had the authority to limit books dustin did through kindle, but movies distributed on demand, limit internet, one of the publication of books by simon and schuster or the sale of books by barnes
and noble if they contain the than one line of expressed advocacy or attacking comments on political candidates. they had to lose that case. you cannot have the government when that case and the fact that the center showed no narrow basis on which the government could have lost i think this is barrels about what the it. what we say a few comments on the judicial elections here. i'm kind of agnostic. it's not i would generally go for what i am not sure they are the worst thing in the world. i think that the professor state exactly read the problem. it's like health care system, people don't want much, they just all they want, where they want it and don't want to pay for it. to demand. laughter could the same thing for the judicial elections. i think that we need to remember when we talk about appointed process these there are different types of appointed
process these. the maza reply and talked about a little bit in the first panel cost for appointment by a group of people who are selected by the bar association and subject then only to detention elections and thus avoids all space accountability. the retention elections do not provide democratic ability to read 99% of justices wendi retention elections. there is nobody to campaign against them to speak. it is just them. there's nobody to say we should do something different. and if there is, who will that be? it will have to be by definition the groups making a large independent expenditures, exactly the kind of things people are now concerned about. on the other hand of the traditional system of a point and we use for example in federal races where they are appointed by the president or by a governor and approved by the senate has still level of popular accountability in at least that the appointing and confirming officials are popularly elected and in fact
levels. >> thanks, tony and things for georgetown and aspen institute of justice o'connell for putting on this event. and i appreciate the opportunity to be here and perhaps explain my own views. i congratulate brad and jean on their big three. deified very hard for this position for some time. it's a little surprising to me that they seem to think that this position will have so little impact that they've been so devoted towards winning. i want to talk a little bit about the context of this decision and then what i see as the potential impact. the decision that we did not want corporate wealth involved in our campaign goes back to 1907, one of the country we banned corporate contributions and federal elections. in 1947, the ban on corporate
expenditures was added along with a ban on labor union contributions and expenditures. if you go back and look at what the sponsors of the legislation said about the corporate expenditure ban, and they were just codifying what everyone had understood the corporate contribution bantu means. we've had two decades of supreme court rulings that upheld the corporate contribution, the corporate expenditure band. so, when i look at last week's decision. unturned, what i see is a court that has been divided for a while on the issue campaign finance laws and i don't think it reflects the kind of change circumstances that we usually have as a basis for overturning
past presidents. i think it reflects a change in the makeup of the court. if not found, and ideological change with a new five vote majority to carry forward what has been for decades the views of the minority on this and other issues. so i don't think this decision has much grounding to stand on. and it faces being changed again at whatever point we reach for the ideological so-called conservative majority on this court changes. some of us will look at stevens dissents as the majority opinion in waiting and maybe i'll be around to see what happens, maybe it won't. but others of you well. in terms of the practical impact, i see this as an
enormous transfer of power from citizens to corporations. it opens the door wide for corporations to conduct iraq champions to elect or defeat whether it's campaign advertisements, direct mail campaign, phone banks or whatever. and it opens the door for those kind of expenditures to be used by influence over the decisions made by officeholders. i think that a "new york times" article headlined last week at a right, that the decision gives lobbyists a potent weapon in carrying out their responsibilities on behalf of their corporation. i think if you look at this in terms of specific examples and to the guys abimelech did official, what you will see is
the capacity for any number of tanks, insurance companies, drug companies and the like, either directly or through intermediaries, such as trade associations, to conduct multimillion dollar campaign for or against elected officials, based on whether they vote to support their positions of those corporations. that is a powerful weapon in a powerful tool to attack the psyche and reality of members of congress. and it won't take long after one or two or three members are taken out because they voted down, whereby the threat, not the reality of spending, the threat of spending will have a similar kind of impact and you won't even have to spend the
at first when third parties or making expenditures to ensure that the public is able to know who is providing the money that is funding those expenditures. as carl said, there's a very broad strong support here for disclosure. and efforts will be made to have maximum required disclosure for corporations and those who spend corporate money in the near future. thank you. >> just on that last point. it was an aide to one vote in favor of the disclosure requirements, but the court has in some contexts found disclosure requirements to be unconstitutional. are you pretty confident the disclosure even more strict
regime of disclosure requirements will be upheld? >> the court in buckley have a caveat for cases where people could show harassment had occurred. that caveat remains, but the court took a very strong position on disclosure. in the mcconnell case they taken a very strong position in disclosure on citizens united and i think there will be enough to maximize disclosure in this area. with the apparent blessing of the supreme court. >> okay. next we'll hear from tommy wells is the immediate past president of the american bar association and partner in the firm maynard cooper in jail in birmingham, alabama. had the privilege of getting to know tommy during his tenure at the aba where he may judicial independence and integrity in
promoting both cornerstone of this year. he's going to give us some death from on the ground in alabama. >> thank you, tony. it's a pleasure to be here. how do you think mayor chertoff and been the driving force behind this and also the georgetown law school and the aspen institute for allowing us to be here. i'm going to talk about i think what we can expect in judicial races in the wake of citizens united here and we have the same in alabama, let's get paid down where the drunks can get out of. i think what we're going to see is what we thought recently in the last judicial race, say why judicial race in the state of alabama in 2008. we had an open seat on the alabama supreme court. and so they were so no incumbent
involved. two judges announced they were going to run against each other for the open seat. one was a district court judge, and other court of criminal appeals judge. between the two of them, they raised and spent $3.8 million. that in and of itself is bad enough. however, in the last week of the campaign, what i want to focus on is what happened with third-party involvement in this race. the so-called independent expenditures. first, one week before the election, a series of ads began to run, praising judge craig shaw who was the republican nominee's performance on the court of criminal appeals. he didn't say vote for judge shaw. he didn't say vote against judge deborah bell passer who was a democrat. it simply said, judge craig shaw was a very good judge on the court of criminal appeals.
over a million dollars and have survived in the past week, funded by a group out of virginia called the center for individual freedom inc. now, what the center for individual freedom incorporated in virginia had in terms of the men checked an open seat on the alabama supreme court is beyond me at this point. but it was enough that they spent almost a million dollars in television ads. following up on that, codes began to ring with so-called push polls. you've heard of push polls. it's supposed to be a poll, but really it's pushing a particular agenda. and this particular push poll, by the way, that area code for the call that came in was from area code 703. if you happen to know area code 703, that also happens to be in
virginia. now why the americans in contact pact and northern virginia wanted to run these push false for an alabama supreme court race, again, the logic defies my understanding. in this push poll however one of the questions was as follows. were you aware that judge deborah bell passer were both given every team have asked by the alabama state bar association class now they've never said that against judge pasteur and they never said vote for judge shaw. but they said, judge pasteur received a rating of past from the alabama state bar. now what the truth of the matter was 20 years ago in 1989, the administrative office of courts have a grading system for quote case currency. how fast you resolve cases and a particular court. they had a rating system eight,
b., c., d., e., s., ng. it turned out in 1989 the court on which judge pasteur sat because it was understaffed and had a very heavy caseload was toward the bottom in their case currency. so her court had received a rating of last. the administrative office of courts found that that was a bad rating system and had to and had abandoned that for the past 20 years. but the push poll asked, were you aware that judge pasteur received and asked not from the administrative office of courts but from the alabama state bar. but of course that the alabama state bar interested in the president of the alabama state bar put out announcements at the alabama state bar doesn't rate judicial candidates and we certainly don't take positions in contested judicial lectures. that was followed again by yet another third independent expenditure group called the
alabama voters against lawsuit abuse, then began running television ads that said the judge never received an aspirating from the bar association. the truth, official court documents show she did receive an aspirating from the administrative office of courts. this was according to the press release issued by the administrative office of words and i'm going to quote, misleading and inaccurate. yet in that particular race, again all of this occurred in the last week of the campaign. again, the press of the alabama state mark white complained to the state attorney general for an investigation. the executive director of the alabama voters against lawsuit abuse claimed it was a violation of guess what, their first amendment rights. and it was referred to mark the press of the alabama state bar
as a legal hood on. did this have any impact to the race. i'll let you decide. one week after these ads began to run, craig shaw the republican won by 12,000 votes out of over 1.2 million votes cast. it was less than 1% of the votes in that particular election. so you decide whether the independent expenditures in the last week of the campaign had an effect. now let's talk just for a second about disclosure. because while the supreme court said you can have on the federal level disclosure rules and if you want to understate level. if you don't enact disclosure rules on the state level you're going to end up with what we ended up with in alabama, which is disclosure found the center for individual freedom as to where there came from, none.
from the americans and contact patch where their money came from, none. from the alabama voters against lawsuit abuse where their money came from, none. why? because they didn't use the words vote for or vote against even though it was clear what they were doing and the election. now i think it's a juicy to look at that and circle back now to the caperton issue. a recusal issue. how in the world can you ever filed a recusal motion if you don't know where the money came from? it simply becomes an impossibility. so for better or for worse, now i'm afraid in all states you're going to be stuck with independent expenditures in judicial races like that that
was fought in the 2008 campaign in alabama. >> thank you. i want to move in a few minutes to some questions from the audience. so get ready for that. but first i wanted to see if there are any comments that speakers want to make about other speakers comments. and one way to frame because there seems to be disagreement about the impact of this case is one thing i want to be sure about and this may be a naïve question, but our research and that in fact this decision will reach to shell state judicial elections. while you're in the last panel said, you know, asked the classic question of whether our judicial elections really different. and are they different enough that they could be held to be outside this decision or is that argument pretty much by the boards at this point? >> i think in light of the white
case for minnesota, that they're not different enough to warrant a different first amendment analysis. now, there are solutions or at least some courses of action that can be taken to accommodate the difference in the earlier panel mentioned public financing. i served on the aba commission that recommended public financing for judicial campaigns. i think we have to recognize that those campaigns are different here is one of the big differences is that judicial candidates really have a difficult time raising the resources to conduct the campaign. i mean, were they going to go to? the ever citizen is not going to be that interested in contributing and they wind up turning primarily to lawyers and perhaps litigants. so we've got to give them more resources because public demands that they run are going to have
to run for election to have greater resources to do so. but public financing doesn't then become a license to try and regulate independent speech. there are proposals to do that. the safest on that doesn't apply to judicial elections, but other elections in arizona that try to jury rig what other people try to do in these elections. the district court just how that system unconstitutional about a week ago. so there are limitations. impact of a recusal, although i'm struck by tommy's notion that one way to effectuate recusal is to require people who may be engaging in spending money and make them publicly known so that the judge will know who's spending the money is supposed to not knowing who's spending the money. presumably you don't need to recuse yourself if you don't know that the party has done anything in a particular
election. and in terms of alabama, i also point out that one of the potential solutions are is that alabama could join one of those 13 states that currently have disclosure rules for the lectionary to indications. so you don't have that. processing legislature will consider passing something like document disclosure will be expanded to the type of advertising that you describe. >> i would note, tom, earlier my good friend jan was referred to as a child of winning brief. he also filed i believe my good friend brad smith filed briefs against disclosure, saying that disclosure itself presents good speech from occurring, that's anonymous speech is good speech tonight and corporations should be allowed to engage in speech without -- and trade associations can without disclosing where the original source of funds were coming
>> good idea to jim's point about where he mentioned the disclosure for lectionary communications, this opinion does say that you don't need express advocacy to require disclosure of these races. it upheld the disclosure for lectionary communications, which is the timeframe. and which dimension of the name of the candidate and certain other factors trigger is disclosure. so, there is room for disclosure that goes beyond express advocacy disclosure in congressional, presidential, or judicial races. >> i'll jump in with three quick points here what the heck. first as regards, to mr. wells comments from these places comments in the context of an ever tightening campaign and i don't have any reason to doubt his description of it appeared
as he is described it he said it's a terrible thing to do. i think it's important that we separate out legal principles from a particular bakke case. i don't think we've ever held in the first amendment that because some people will say things that we don't like or think are not constructive that we can therefore blanca lake venice beach. if we have at the same thing about a campaign that was entirely truthful, that was wonderful, but off the lies being told by the candidate himself, kennedy perhaps tonight he'd ever been given an ad. and then the candidate lost by 12,000 votes. we'd say boy things goodness there was a independent spending there. we have to separate the analysis to whether we should have this kind of independent spending from a particular campaign i think of good or bad. it just on disclosure, i want to say very briefly, you know, make your disclosure that your center for competitive politics which i shared and filed briefs in the case. that's what we get to be your
guest. is that i've heard some people say it's not regulation, just disclosure. it is a form of regulation. the purpose of disclosure is to help citizens monitor their government. it is not for the government to monitor its citizens reared and i'm not quite sure all the time where that line is, but we do need to be careful. i get very nervous whenever i hear people say we did everything disclosed on the internet. we don't need every little small donor of $200 so undisclosed. i think moderation like most things in life is good in moderation. >> i wanted to ask the panelists about the interplay between caperton and citizens united. justice stevens said motions to recuse will catch some of the worst abuses of this new flow of money into judicial campaigns. but he said there was a small
comfort to states and mena want to be up out of place and love the doll dollar corporate electioneering. so i just want to see if you think caperton does provide a remedy for whatever excesses citizens united may bring at least in the judicial election. >> well, tony all jump in there since i sort of link the caperton to my story. i think it's going to depend entirely on disclosure. in the alabama situation, if you can't find out who provided the money for the push polls, and jan i'm not so naïve as to believe that judge shot doesn't have some idea who gave that money to support his candidacy. but the general voting public doesn't know that. and certainly the weather gets to appear before the supreme court don't know that and therefore can't file any type of motion, even though the
$1 billion for the center for individual freedom spent in support of justice shaw's campaign wasn't quite as much of the 60% that was spent by don blankenship and independent expenditures in support of the west virginia campaign. but it was a significant amount of it was a third at least of the amount that shaw spent on his entire campaign. if we knew who gave $10 million, we might be able to file a caperton motion. but we don't know. and so, without disclosure, you're not going to have a caperton motion. so, i think the next step i think for people who are interested in particularly judicial elections, but quite frankly, all elections come is going to be in those states that
don't have some type of disclosure to try to move to strengthen your disclosure requirements so that the donors cannot hide behind the center for individual freedom inc. in virginia. >> it's also going to depend on the judge as. judges refuse to recuse themselves, you're not going to find many litigants who are going to be in a position to pursue this through the courts. so, the attitude of judges will have a great impact on the potential for recusal be in a solution here. i'm kind of in the small comfort school. >> any other thoughts before we bring in some public questions from the audience about what next will happen at the state
level in wake of citizens united. will there be motions to declare state laws unconstitutional? how does that process work? >> well, it tends to work either legislatively or through opinions of an attorney general or entity that has responsibility for enforcement, you know, legislators repealed their laws that the extent aren't consistent with the attorney general will issue a ruling. and if there are states that either refuse to do that or are more likely that there might be a dispute over a particular statute as to whether or not it's inconsistent with the statute. well, then as we lawyers like to say, litigation will ensue, right? >> anyone else? okay, are there any questions about citizens united family
audience? >> hi, my name -- >> i'm sorry. [inaudible] >> there's a speaker right behind you there. >> i just wanted to ask a question, as someone who is more persuaded by justice stevens dissent in by the majority opinion, i'm struck by both the pros and cons hysteria. that is, it seems to me, i guess my question would be partly to fred entirely to tommy. if indeed it is the case that in the bad example in alabama that the senator for individual freedom inc. in virginia did not use magic words, manage simply to make the point clear. and that's what we're focusing us on the incremental impact of
the citizens united decision rather than the last 20 or 25 years of jurisprudence. denizen of the case that people like fred and carl are exaggerating the likely pragmatic impact that is the same thing could've been done the day before citizens united. it's just that now things might be a bit more transparent. and isn't transparency even by their values they could name? there will be people who react to this somewhat appalled poet reaction to know is given over government to corporate control by focusing on the importance of better shareholder remedies, more complete disclosure. i would imagine too that this will energize the attention to how spm carlin suggested on the caperton may really miss the big targets which is the inherent
tension in democracy between the desire for independent to vacation on the desire for accountability and encourage the movement that justice o'connor is happily propelling for eventually replacing elected judges, judges appointed by some other process. in other words, isn't this wrongly decided case a good day in terms of what its likely impact will be? >> no, in my view. you know, part of this argument depends on whether you think money does influence government decisions are not in a lot of people don't think it does. and in that case, the impact won't be much. i am not of that view.
what we've gone fran is a system where was the legal to make these expenditures and were expenditures were made around the shades of that legality, in which there've been fights over, which resulted in the electioneering communication provision. to a point where it is now an exercise of my constitutional right as a corporation to make these expenditures. and while there are some constraints in terms of shareholders and nervousness without being publicly identified with this corporations do have the responsibility, fiduciary responsibility to backslide their profits. they have extraordinary economic stakes in washington. and in the decisions that are made. and it's been my experience over
40 years that when opportunities are provided to put money into campaigns and into the political process to obtain influence, those opportunities are quickly filled. we wound up with a $500 million soft money system, funded by corporations, business, labor unions, mostly corporation and business interest very quickly. so, i don't think this is a question i've hysteria. i think as i said i also think you have to look at this through the eyes of what members of congress had to deal with. house members on 24 hours a day for every two-year period. anytime you're going to vote as a member of the house or senate, you are going to now have to take into account in ways that you did not have to take into account before, in equation of what is the potential impact in terms of bringing large
resources against me and to my campaigns? and is nonsense, you will have an impact on the thinking of elected officials, even if danny is not spent. now, we'll all find out whether this is just an incremental change or not. and i don't expect corporations early on to go out there with advertising campaigns directly. i expect them to do it through third-party groups. but i do believe that one ought to take seriously the kind of shift and impact that this is going to have on the electoral process and government decision-making. and maybe i contact to jan and see if we can extend his support for public financing of judicial elections to federal elections, but i haven't been able to so far.
>> you haven't proposed a system that didn't have all kinds of bells and whistles that were unconstitutional. but if you decide to, i will support it. >> let me answer the professor's question since he is part of it to me. i think the answer is yes and no. it's going to be worse than states that had campaign restrictions. because they're going to go by the wayside, campaign restrictions. i think it is an opportunity back in states like alabama that did not have disclosure requirements that now they can clearly say we cannot transparency in this process. so it's an opportunity for the half states, roughly half and half, that didn't really have campaign finance restrictions or disclosure to at least enact disclosure. so i think the answer is both yes and no. >> i answered the question pretty much the same.
this won't be the first time i disagree with brad. we disagreed with the number of decisions i made was in the federal elections commission. but i think they gasper comes comes from the fact that since there has been no effective limit on what corporations believe they could stand in elections. so this doesn't signal big departure from what the state of the law was. and what's good about this is it does bring focus within corporations that activities to date have largely been not transparent to which no one was accountable. and i think to the extent it brings greater accountability and transparency to what these very large institutions are spending money when they attempt to influence elections and why they were spending benefits a plus. that's a prediction about the future i'm not confident that we will actually get greater
transparency and accountability. but if that is the result, then i think that there is not quite a silver lining, it whining here that we can appreciate that we will me be better the system to the direction it was going. >> do you want to -- >> thank you. dingman bro, i'm an attorney sharon tana graduated from the fosco 25 years ago so it's good to be back. it's good to hear a speaker i can understand. i'm a little bit confused as chris matthews was while you're not a little bit more irritated or i can tell when the case because never seems to bear happy. it might require model rules for state borrowers to know how to rule on recusal. wouldn't it be possibly a good idea for groups like yours are people like you to put up model rules to be used for disclosure? because the leading governor candidate in alabama there are
no restrictions, but they also don't have an effective for disclosure. and it occurred to me that you mamma to group together with some of your colleagues about the model rules on disclosure because if they don't restrictions they probably don't have a lot of practice and are disclosure either. and thank you, justice o'connor. >> we are focused on not looking at what would be appropriate disclosure rules. we would hope you join with others and doing something exactly like that. >> i served for three plus years on the aba committee reviewing the model code of judicial conduct. and we didn't get to disclosure, but we did get the issue about campaign contributions that we did address the issue of recusal. and some dearly refuge of the culture of judges. and i would say the issue of recusal and also to the issue of gift rules probably revealed to me the culture of judges more
than anything off. which was basically, we don't want to get into that and take too much because i'm a judge then i'll decide, you know, whether i should accept the tickets to the university for dog and or not, assuming it's not a lawyer or litigant and things of that sort. i will decide on what basis recusal is required and we want to retain aggression discussion. when it comes to disclosure of course i'm confident the judges as well as the aba and all the folks who hang out with brad and say well that doesn't affect me. i want to know what's going on and i'd be glad to have as much disclosure as the government can pass. >> okay. well, thank you for your much for the panelist or there's obviously still disagreement over how big of a deal citizens united is. in this context and there