tv U.S. Senate CSPAN May 2, 2012 12:00pm-5:00pm EDT
yes. [laughter] fifteen minutes before runs p. for questions, and -- lunch for questions, and i would at the beginning because steve was is so short that i have some questions. [laughter] i would like to, um, i was asked by europol and by some other members, by some member states that the cooperation with the u.s. companies is not very easy sometimes, especially if cases must be treated very, very quickly because there is a huge damage caused or there's danger caused. so, um, how could you think that the fbi could strengthen the cooperation in between europol and the fbi to help to provide, to share the information needed because sometimes it's not very easy for us, for european law enforcement agencies to work with u.s. companies that ask,
for example, for treatment and then to discuss if they get some informations or not. >> i think in terms of working with the private sector, obviously, um, i don't have a, an ability to provide you with what they would tell you right now because, obviously, corporate america is under legal restrictions, and their own privacy considerations that are very difficult for them to handle in a transnational world, right? so they've got all sorts of issues with conflict of laws and the like. so i think if you add one of the private sector companies up here, i probably will not be doing justice to what they would say or the issues on how they're trying to balance those equities in an increasingly global world. more laws than there are languages. so -- [laughter] so i don't want to do a disservice to them, but i can
tell you how we've gone about it. so the way we've done it in the united states is we've, um, i would say do three things simultaneously. we work with individual victim companies, both those that we believe are likely to become victims and those who are current victims. and what we refer that, to that as is, um, every field office of the fbi is throughout the entire country and is responsible for knowing its area of responsibility and getting out to the community and working with the primary owners and operators of the critical infrastructure. so we have a very personal relationship with a lot of those companies to build up a level of trust that wouldn't exist just by the force of us being federal law enforcement and they being u.s. companies. i think it still requires us to do that outreach. on top of that, we organize a group called infraguard a number of years ago that started out with about 200 people in three cities, cleveland, columbus and
indianapolis where the fbi brought together local business interests and just started discussing problems that initially were cyber-centric because nobody was discussing those and has since expanded to all security matters, both physical and cyber. and we found a lot of, um, appetite for getting together routinely so that different corporations that were in different discipline had a forum to actually meet with each other and know the fbi in advance of an incident so they were very comfortable speaking with us when an incident occurred. since that time in 1996 this group has grown to being over 85 chapters strong throughout the united states and having over 50,000 members. so it's something that we had to work on. it's not as though we knocked on the doors and immediately we had a reaction that was different than what you're posing. and the last area that we've worked with that's evident through ron's presence here is working with nonprofit
organizations that represent a multitude of interests. some of those are sector-specific, um, like the financial services information-sharing analysis center which ron mentioned that they have a working relationship with in addition to those organizations like the ncfta. we work with the national white collar crime center to form a partnership called the internet crime complaint center which is the largest portal for fraud internet crime in the world. and we received last year over 900,000 incident reports -- 300,000 incident reports that we get to analyze, aggregate, deconflict and refer so that we can see commonalities across jurisdiction. and that helps us as well work with industry so instead of getting a thousand requests for information about a common problem, they're getting one request because we've done our leg work up front before we go to them because the private sector has limited means to respond to multiple agencies descending on them with similar requests.
they're not resourced for that as well. so the point then that i would, um, answer without speaking on behalf of private industry is that it takes effort, and it takes it at individual levels, and then with large organizations that have representatives over the entire industry, and that has shown great success because at the end of the day it builds trust. it builds trust in our partners coming to us and letting us know what their key issues are, those issues that are of most importance to them and where they can't bend, the issues that they're seeing either for a legal reason or a corporate reason, um, are their bright lines and the same thing for us, to express to our corporate partners that these are the areas we really need to be successful on behalf of our law enforcement or intelligence mission, and so these are the areas we need your help in. and that level of trust requires a effort over time that we've developed literally over the past 14 or so years.
>> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] oh. very interesting conversation on cyber crime. i have two questions for the europeans on the panel. the first, i'd like to ask to troels. steve talked a little bit about the public/private relationship with the fbi and their public/private partnership, of course, we have a representative here from the private sector who works to aggregate this. what is the envisioned relationship between the private sector and the new european cyber crimes center specific specifically? because i know that member states like the netherlands, like the u.k. with the financial sector have very sophisticated relationships with their private sectors, but how will that be aggregated at the european level especially considering this is a single market, and really cyber crime is a single-market problem? and the second question is for
ms. hole meyer, i'd be interested to know the debate in parliament about the erection of this european cyber crimes center. of course, the european parliament has a reputation for being rightfully, um, very probing on these kind of questions and particularly in light of recent debates, so what are some of the questions the parliament has as they begin to debate this? >> i'll try to answer the first question in the way that, first of all, the center will try to identify what's already going on. we don't want to duplicate. so if dutch are having a good relationship with their private company and the bk has with deutsche bank, other ones, we will just take the benefit of that and make sure that we get rooted this also. but i think that there is a gap here, and that's what we are trying to actually see how big it is and what we can do about it. and as soon as we identified --
and i've had already phone calls as to the publication of the cyber center -- how can we get you to receive our information? there is some kind of desperation in some of the private companies to get away with their information about critical incidents. and do this in a structured way where they also receive the anonymity so for competition reasons that they are not revealing anything. and i think that we would like to have the same systems as you have in the u.s. that we can receive all this information either through the member states if it's already up and running, we won't duplicate this, or directly if we can. and then we also have to reach out, i guess, outside the e.u.'s border because we have multi-national companies that we need, and we will do this, of course, through our partners here and in a way that we can share. and i think it's not the easy part, but it's easier than the other thing which is that we will also have to actually ask private companies by subpoenas or court orders to give us
information. and i think this was where it was also referred to that because you own most of the companies running, you know, microsoft, aol, yahoo! and all this, we have a lot of court orders toward the u.s. which is handled sometimes in a fragmented way because we have 27 member states who send it to 27 -- [inaudible] or whatever, and it ends up in california in some prosecutor's office in a big pile of other papers. and i would actually like to propose that based on need, of course, in the future, there could be an interest for doj to post an attorney in the center and route it through the right way and vice versa. because we also have a complicated system. in some countries you can obtain this, in others it's more difficult. but to have this interlocutor would help us. but that's, of course, at doj, and that's also something that must be taken up in the discussion between the parliament and the senate and maybe between the e.u. and the high-level meeting with the u.s.
but i would sense that that could be a bridge in the future for this. >> i absolutely agree. [laughter] and so for the ec3 how was the reaction of the european parliament? the european parliament, i think 90% of the parliamentarians welcomed the initiative of commissioner malmstrom because all the parliamentarians see the problems in the field of cyber crime, and most of the parliamentarians that have discussed problems about cyber crime in the last, in the last two, three months, um, they saw how many, how huge the damage that is caused by cyber crime. the problem that we see is that small member states are not
always able to react as big members can react. there is -- estonia is an example on the other side of -- the small member state is able to do this. but we have member states, they are not able to react in the same way as, for example, as great britain or germany or france and so on. so we would like to have really an information share anything the member states -- sharing in the member states. we would like to have better information system, collect system in the european union. we would like to have all those information for all member states want to have those informations. we would like to have operational help for smaller member states who are not able to do this. we would like to have, say,
professional training for all the prosecutors, for the lawyers as ron plesco reported five minutes ago. so to do this with 28 member states you need a center that is responsible for this. and you need staff to do it. if you don't do that, it's still a rose cloud. [laughter] and we don't want to talk about rose clouds. we would like to really to react in a quicker way. and the thing that most of the parliamentarians see is that we are, we in the parliament, we are not able to react quick in political decisions, but you have to react quick in those decisions. that's why, for example, the directive are all formulated in a technical, neutral form so we don't discuss specialties in a directive, but we give a mandate
to the agency, the mandate to the member states to react quicker and to react in if -- react in a more common approach. so i think the european cyber, the ec3, it will really be welcomed by nearly all the parliamentarians. always, we have some specialists, but i don't think they will have the maturity. [laughter] in pnr, we get to cross the maturity too in a better way, huh? [laughter] >> if i could adjust before i think we're almost out of time, before another question comes in, i was remiss in one of my comments. i talked about the eight countries that are colocated with us, i did not get permission from seven of those countries to let you all know who they were, but i did from one, and it's my apologies to nick lewis who's sitting out there. legal attache, my version for
what he does and to the british embassy who last week we were happy to formally announce with the chair of saca, with phillip barton, head of station, as well as with the governor of pennsylvania the deployment for next handful of years of an agent at the ncfta. and thank you, and my apologies for being remiss in that, nick. it was real large and said british, and it was on the next page, so my apologies. >> somebody else who wants -- question? i think everybody's hungry or something like this. [laughter] everybody's tired. [laughter] a little bit. so let's have a little break -- [inaudible] >> lunch is coming. on time. so thank you very much. [applause] >> indeed, lunch has arrived. please, help yourself at the
back. there's two tables, buffet tables, and we'll come back to you with some more very informative and exciting discussions. thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> newt gingrich is suspending his presidential campaign today. his announcement is at 3 p.m. eastern, you'll be able to see
it live on our companion network, c-span, again, at 3 p.m. eastern. every day this week here on c-span2 at 7 p.m. eastern, q&a on education in america. tonight gerald turner, the president of southern methodist university. thursday, andrew ferguson, author of "crazy u: one dad's crash course in getting his kid into college." and friday, madeleine sackler who made a documentary about the lottery system that's used to select students in new york city's charter schools. q&a every day this week starting at 7 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. and with the u.s. senate in recess, booktv is here on c-span2 each night this week. tonight, american servicemen reflecting on their experiences in the iraq and afghanistan. starting at 8 eastern, actor benjamin bush, a marine reservist, who was deployed to iraq. and following that, ken hourer and mitch white discuss their book about special forces missions in afghanistan. and at 10, chris kyle, author of
"american sniper." between 1971 and 1973 president richard nixon secretly recorded nearly 4,000 hours of phone calls and meetings. >> always agree on the little things, and then you hold on the big one. i mean, hell, i've done this so often in conversations with people, i'll say, well, we'll concede that and make 'em all feel good, but then don't give them the big one. >> every saturday this month on c-span radio, hear more of the nixon tapes including discussion with future presidents, key white house advisers saturdays at 6 p.m. eastern. this week hear conversations with gerald ford, ronald reagan and george h.w. bush. in washington, d.c. listen at 90.1 fm, on xm channel 119 and at c-span radio.org. a british parliamentary committee looking into phone hacking by british newspapers issued a report yesterday finding that rupert murdoch, the
head of news corporation international, is, quote, not a fit person to run a major corporation. the culture media and sport committee released the report during an hour, 15-minute news conference. >> i hope that you have by now had a time to read the committee's report. um, i intend just to give a brief summary of the committee's conclusions and then one or two of my colleagues wish to make brief statements before we move to questions. i should first say that the report concentrates, um, not entirely but in large part on the issue of whether this committee was misled in the evidence that it received principally during its 2009 inquiry. although we do go on to draw, obviously, wider conclusions. it is also important to say that the committee has not made any
comment about the knowledge or the involvement or the evidence of any individuals who have been arrested. we have deliberately refrained from doing so because we are conscious of risk that any comment might produce a possible criminal trial. having said that, the committee did conclude unanimously that les hinton, then-chairman, misled the committee in 2009 in not telling the truth about the payments made to clive goodman and his role in authorizing them and also in relation to the payment of his legal fees. the committee was also misled insofar as he did not divulge the full extent of his knowledge of allegations that phone hacking extended beyond clive goodman and glenn mulcaire.
we also concluded that tom crohn misled the committee by giving a counterimpression of the significance of the confidentiality clause in the gordon taylor settlement and sought to mislead the committee on commissioning of surveillance. we concluded that tom crone and colin miler misled the committee about their knowledge of evidence that other "news of the world" employees had been involved in phone hacking and other wrongdoing. the committee went on to conclude, but only by a majority vote, that whilst there was no definitive evidence to prove whether or not james murdoch was aware of the for neville e-mail or, indeed, other evidence which indicated that phone hacking was widespread, the committee was nevertheless astonished that he did not seek to see the evidence of which the decision to pay the
settlement in the gordon taylor case was based. the committee also went on, again, to conclude by majority vote that corporately the "the news of the world" and news international had misled the committee repeatedly about the true extent and nature of the investigations that they claim to have carried out in relation to phone hacking. and that they had failed to disclose documents which would have revealed the truth. as a result of these various attempts to mislead the committee, the report that we published in 2010 was not based on a fully-accurate picture. as a result of this, the committee has decided that we will table a motion in the house of commons, asking the house to endorse our conclusions about misleading evidence, and we will
also refer our report to the liaison committee which is looking into questions related to the powers and effectiveness of select committees. now, i believe one or two of my colleagues wish to add. >> thank you, john. to put it politely, um, we've been led up the garden path by news international, but more importantly, so were the readers of its newspapers, the general public and the victims of phone hacking. um, two years ago in our report we found the organization guilty of collective amnesia and said it was inconceivable that one rogue reporter was involved, and we were right. on the same evidence that we received, however, the press complaints commission exonerated "the nudes of the world," and, indeed, shot the messenger, "the guardian." after closure of "the news of the world," for credibility's sake, we really had to look at
who came and misled us which was the reason for reopening this inquiry. clearly, we don't want to pressure any future trials, but we also thought it was not right that a few people in these circumstances should carry the whole of the corporate can, and you'll find in report a strong corporate finding against news international and news corporation. and i would just remind people of one thing in relation to those findings, that rupert murdoch himself who founded the organization has at all times been a director of news international and not just of news corporation. finally, one of the things we've sought to set out in reports is the human cost of phone hacking and other wrongdoing to which it contributed. it was not just a technical trick, a victim he is potential crime -- victimless potential crime, but the human cost is laid bare in some of the statements agreed finally by newspapers in open court and in
particular we cite one, postsit one of those statements, that of charlotte church and the treatment of her family. >> damian collins. >> thank you. the report talks about our astonishment at the failure of the company to investigate fully and uncover incidents of phone hacking from the period, certainly, of the gordon taylor settlement through to the end of 2010-'11 when there were ample opportunities, there were plenty of lights flashing on the dashboard of that company to suggest that greater investigation was needed. in looking crucially at the pivotal role of james murdoch in the settlement of the gordon taylor case, i think we have been reminded to follow precisely the evidence we were given which doesn't contradict anything he said to the committee and, therefore, it's probably impossible to say that he misled parliament. but i think we can be critical of the actions of the senior
executives at that time in the failure of the company to disclose information about phone hacking, the failure of those in the company to investigate it fully and, overall, a failure of corporate leadership. i would just also touch, like to touch on the role, the pivotal role that led -- [inaudible] we have been critical of because it was stated in the leveson inquiry last week that it was what senior executives in the company knew -- which was very limited -- and there was what lawyers, managers and editors in the company knew which may have been greater. but they did have someone who had the opportunity to sit down with clive goodman and interrogate him personally about his employment claim. he was aware of allegations and, i think, this key quote that was used, was given to the committee in written evidence that james murdoch has used in his defense, this one of les is no longer here, jay cut out the cancer, and that has focused very much on the role of james murdoch,
but it's also intriguing how it would have been dealt with differently. so i think he has a pivotal role, and that's why we focused on it in our report. >> thank you. tom watson. >> it's been ten years, one month and nine days since "news of the world" hacked milly dowler's phone. five days ago, rupert murdoch admitted there was a cover-up at news corporation. we find news corporation ran an extensive cover-up. its most senior executives misled parliament, and the two men at the top must now answer for that. in the view of the majority of committee members, rupert murdoch is not fit to run an international company like bskyb. i'm personally disappointed that some members didn't feel sufficiently convinced or confident to hold the most powerful to account.
they felt they couldn't support sections 216 to 229 of the report. many hacking victims have still not been informed of what was done to them. and rupert murdoch has not said his last apology to the families of murdered children. let us also remember that this scandal cost many hundreds of journalists, innocent journalists, their jobs. they found it hard to find work. i know this because i've provided references for a number of them. parliament was misled. that we now know. but there were four issues we couldn't get to the bottom of because of time constraints, decisions of the committee not to proceed or because they fall outside our -- [inaudible] former member of the scottish parliament tommy sheridan lost his liberty on a majority verdict of a jury that was not in full possession of the facts.
he received a three-year prison sentence. i believe the judgment is unsound. if rupert murdoch really is sorry, he will order an urgent review of the information his company provided to the jury in the sheridan case. now that we know that the former first minister in scotland was also a target of hacking, i'm writing to recommend he sets up an inquiry by the scottish parliament into how and why msps were targeted. secondly, we asked the murdochs about computer hacking, but we didn't get very far. i'm not certain, but i have reason to believe that the serious organized crime agency is in possession of seized hard drives that may show a list of victims who were the targets of computer hackers. there may well be a mulcaire ii out there where the authorities think it is right not to inform people who have had their privacy invaded by private
investigators who have links with national newspapers. i'm writing to the chair of the home affairs select committee today to raise my concerns and to ask that his committee do what it can to establish the facts. thirdly, we were not able to establish the extent to which committee members were the targets of private investigators or journal its trying to collect information in order to either smear or influence. last week former chief reporter of "news of the world" said it was news international, not "news of the world," which ordered us to dig into the private lives of the mps on the committee which was investigating -- [inaudible] he went on to say that many news international executives were in the loop. the committee did not have the time to act on these newallegations, but i think they are so serious they warrant an inquiry by the committee of standards and privileges for potential contempt of parliament. and fourthly, though we've not had time to discuss it in committee, it is my personal
view that we should embark on an investigation into the relationship between ministers, special advisers and lobbyists working for news international and bskyb. i repeat my call that the pm should allow the leveson inquiry to view the private e-mails and texts of treasury advisers and mr. frederick michelle of news international and mr. graham william of bskyb. the truth is that whatever we have said in our report and however you choose to report it tomorrow, the public have made up their minds. powerful people were involved in a cover-up, and they still haven't accepted responsibility. and after all of this, the story is not yet over. it was reported at the weekend that rebecca brooks was prepared to release her personal texts and e-mails to david cameron to the leveson inquiry. i think she should. but as the prime minister said yesterday, the contacts between
rupert murdoch and senior ministers crossed both sides of the house. if we really want to see how news corp. in the u.k. operates, then the current pm and chancellor, all former prime ministers including tony blair and gordon brown and former chancellors might want to consider revealing their texts and e-mails to company executives. ..
more than any individual alive he is to blame. morally the deeds are his. he paid the piper and he caught the tune. it was his company, his culture, his people, his business, his failures, his lies, his crimes. the price of profits and his power. >> thank you, tom. i think it is fair to say that was not the unanimous view of the committee. [laughter] phillip davis. >> coming back to the report, which i don't think of that was anything to do with the report but if we come back to the report i think the chairman was right to focus on the parts of the report where we you unanimously
agreed and that was on the people who misled the committee and the way in which they did mislead the committee and i very much hope people won't get sidelined by the other bits, bits of what we've just heard of. and which were not the overwhelming view of the committee. they aren't the unanimous view ever the committee but passed by the majority. when people look at the report they might want to look at some of the amendments that were tabled and the votes that took place and i think that when people do that they will see that the report was only passed by six votes to four as a result, particularly of the conclusion about rupert murdoch and empe, i think many people will conclude, unfortunately, because i think it may well detract from the unanimous recommendations of the committee, i think some people may conclude that
some people's conclusions were written before any of the evidence was ever heard or gone over and i think that's very sad too. people will see that there was a majority of two on the committee for these things. people may also want to notice that two of those people who voted for those things weren't even on the committee to listen to any of the evidence at the time and yet felt sufficiently strongly to vote for those rather controversial recommendations. and i just urge people to get back to the nitty-gritty of this report, what this report was supposed to do. this is very serious business. we're making decisions about which affect people's lives, their reputations and i think that rather than focusing on certain people getting carried away i would urge you to look at things where we made unanimous conclusions which are very, very serious for the people concerned.
those people should, as the chairman said in his opening remarks should be held to account. that's why we want to put forward a motion to parliament to ask them to endorse our conclusions so that people realize how serious it was that those people at news international misled this committee. nobody is saying that people like james murdoch and rupert murdoch haven't made mistakes. i'm sure they have actually admitted themselves they have made mistakes and, you know, i'm, i don't really have much in news international tried to get me off the original inquiry back in 2009 but i think we've got to be fair about these things. we have to base our decisions based on the evidence and not what we would like the evidence to be and therefore i urge you to look at where we made unanimous conclusions of the committee rather than getting carried away by some people who are i'm afraid got carried away themselves
and have decided it seems what the conclusions were before they actually started out on the inquiry. >> i want to start by saying that i have the highest respect for my friends and colleague tom watson. he is is a man of complete and total integrity and i have absolutely no doubt that the amendments that he put forward to the report and that the speech he just made today represents his very sincere from the heart, i have the highest respect for them. that said it is not completely correct to say as tom just did some members of the committee have problems with 260, or 290 or whatever it was. members of the press can look at the divisions in the back. i encourage them to do so. when they look how the voting went they will see conservative members of the committee did not vote as a bloc and often disagreed with each other and divided different way on different amendments that was not the same with our labour colleagues. it was not simply matter for
not voting for certain amendments. no conservative member of committee on the vote was able to recommend the report to the house and everyone of us while we shared different views of the culpability of news corporation and the degree of culpability of james murdoch in particular, none of us were able to support the report and we all voted against it. that will mean it will be correctly seen as a partisan report and we've lost a very great deal of its credibility which is an enormous shame. and the issue on which no conservative member felt they could support the report itself was the line put in the middle of the report that said, that mr. rupert murdoch is not a fit person to run an international company. we all felt that was wildly outside the scope of a select committee. was an improper attempt to influence ofcom and to tread on areas that is not the province of the select committee and our report at least ostensibly was about
whether or not the prior committee had been mislead. and even though clearly the many amendments tabled by my colleagues were carried by majority vote i would nonetheless have voted for the report and explained where i desagreed and so would many of my colleagues, not all of them, many of them, had that line about rupert murdoch's unfitness to run an international company not been left in. it was however left in and on that basis i'm afraid to say despite our wildly different views as recorded in the vote, not a one of us could ayee that this report ought to be placed before the house and it was carried on political lines and therefore, after years, well, many months of work, i fear that its credibility has been damaged but i don't doubt the integrity of the committee who want to argue that. this is the result we're left with and i do think it is a real great shame.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i need to respond to the, i my colleague membershiply. as a new member committee. i looked at the evidence. i made sure i great detail at the role of the committee. i think bringing a new focus to the committee has helped the committee in terms of detail of what has been said. being a member of this house for 18 years. i've been a minister for 12 years. and i have been worried about the influence of news international over that period of time. and i think anybody reading this report fair, forgetting the breakdown of the voting will see a worrying situation that needs to be addressed. and i do agree with it chairman, if we look at, we agree, all of us in terms of the recommendations, they are beyond doubt. it is open to political debate, and i understand that but clearly this is perhaps the worst situation i've seen in terms of our democracy in the time i've been an mp.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. first of all i want to just stress that some of what the chairman reiterated earlier, i'm very proud that it is parliament that initiated this inquiry and i am very proud we've been able through the powers of parliament to have information laid before us that is subsequent being able to use at the levinson inquiry and ongoing litigation. without that there is certain evidence that would not be admissible in the current inquiry. i also want to add that i consistently opposed bringing into our report the evidence from civil litigations and also the levinson inquiry and wanted to focus pretty much exclusively on the evidence presented directly to us as mps, whether in oral or written fashion, evidence that we were able to see all of, that we were able to ask questions about, to follow-up with inquiries and
i, that is why i consistently opposed various amendments that draw on other matters. as i said before, news international will particularly regret dismissing the last report that was issued by our predecessor committee on this matter. they will regret forever not taking the chance to thoroughly investigate the allegations made then and the recommendations made then. i can understand for somebody who has worked in a family-run business, a very big family-run business about how, when you are attacked by people making allegations it can be easy to dismiss, especially as is critical in businesses and you see happen, family-run businesses implicit trust people have in their executives and each other. but what i would say to them now, certainly, i hope that all the directors of news corp and news
international will read this report from front to end and don't just dismiss it like the last one. i'm sure they won't. and mr. chairman, i think it is sad that we were not able to present a united report. you have already heard reasons why it was not possible. i certainly felt it was not possible to vote for the report as expressed by my colleague louise mensch. but again, reflecting what phillip davies has said, i hope we can focus what we did agree on and it will, the motion will be debated in parliament, i hope early in the new session. very brief, comment chair on the unfortunately comments by the members shipley. i made my decisions absolutely based on the evidence presented to the committee and no other reason. >> the committee's report is the result of nine months
work in an ever-changing environment of new revelations and lines of inquiry. we have at least drawn a line and published our findings and it will now fall on parliament to determine how it wishes to deal with them. as for political divides, we are in a political chamber and i have no doubt that the comments that my conservative friends have made would have been precisely the friends that my labour friend would have made had i voted the other way. >> i do feel compelled to say something on this issue. i have to say i wholeheartedly agree with tom watson comments and in particular the level of blame against rupert murdoch. regardless of who said what and when, rupert murdoch is the head of this corporation and therefore should carry
the can for the unspeakable actions of the people who he employed. and just pack reock keel for a minute, from scotland, there are some suspicion surrounding the association with first minister hammond and his dealings with repub. hens the reason were murdoch newspapers have swung behind supporting the smp in scotland that begs the question why. even at this late-stage i would ask alex hammond to come lien look at this report, learn from this report and more importantly act on this report. as tom watson already said, someone robbery as result of the evidence in the case and he and his family deserve some kind of a inquiry and into why that happened.
>> thank you very much. -- [inaudible] chairman, can i ask you, i'm not entirely clear from the divisions at the back. is it your view that rupert murdoch is or isn't a fit and proper person to run an international company? and, yourself and other members of the committee, as far as i can work out from the divisions in the back, voting divisions you have all agreed, haven't you, that what james and rupert murdoch have been saying that they didn't know it was more than one reporter until december 2010, is simply astonishing? that sounds to me like a word a lawyer inserted to avoid the word incredible in the text. how can that be true and rupert murdoch be a fit and proper person to run a company? >> in response to your first part of your question, and this applies not just in passage you equate but applies to all divisions which took place in the committee, the chairman does
not vote. the chairman does have a vote if there is tie in which the chairman has the casting vote but otherwise the chairman does not vote. i would merely observe as well as been chairman of the committee i'm a conservative member of parliament. in response to your second question, the committee did in large part find it astonishing that jauls murdoch particularly stated to us that he did not become aware of the e-mail evidence until much later. i think how you interpret that individual members of the committee would like to explain to themselves why they supported that conclusion or i think in one case did not. but i think we would all agree astonishing was a good word which we could all vote,
felt voting i think one the one exception could support. do you want -- >> i voted for that amendment and we had lively discussion about it. i said to paul who tabled amendment i could vote for it as written but not for the same reasons he wished to imply in drafting of it. i think it is absolutely astonishing this was not known at the company until later and that is because in my opinion only, people lower out of the chain of command did not make it adequately clear to their bosses what was going on. there was in my opinion a deliberate attempt at a cover-up that was made. therefore i completely agree it was as ton niching that people not more open and didn't lay the facts bear. for that -- bare. for that reason i supported amendment. my colleague dr. coffey placed on it did not support it. i think indispute he hadly
amazing this was not laid bare to senior management at news corporation when it happened. the question for whom the blame false. >> to clarify your question about fit and proper, astonishing, i think this ising with where we have to i think respect in some ways what the inquiry was about which was about whether parliament was misled by people about the knowledge of phone-hacking and actions people had taken. we didn't take evidence looking at corporate governance in the round. therefore i think it is difficult for us to take a view the way executives perform in their operations within a company. you might be very critical about that. there is lots of critical language about the way which people led the business and decisions that they took but i certainly think the four of us that voted against the section on rupert murdoch felt this was not something we had investigated. there was no evidence linking him directly to knowledge within the business. now people may find that astonishing and but nevertheless that is where we got to. i think he quite important
we did draw the line. our view we should focus on evidence we had found what very senior people in the original knew and there at that point unanimity and critical language the way people acted. as i said people failure to see the lights flashing on dashboard of that company when there was clearly lots of warnings of problems within the organization. >> can i say very briefly. i drafted amendment and i'm certainly not a lawyer. we followed the evidence. all my amendments haved to the evidence. with james murdoch, for example, given the conflicting accounts and the history of what we've been told by witnesses going back five years from news international, we simply couldn't make our mind up with any conviction about whether he misled or not. time possibly may tell if other evidence emerges but
while following the evidence it was important to just get our heads-up and look at the bigger picture because we were told not with standing everything that happened, all the media revelations including "new york times", not just the guardian, our report, the wide publication of evidence such as follow-up e-mail we were being told effectively it was only in late december 2010, alone in the presence of that, there was epiphany moment allegedly where they suddenly at the top realized that the one rogue reporter defense was not true. and i drafted astonishing in its literal sense because i had a head-shaking moment, how could this come to happen? >> thank you, joe jones from sky news. ask you, obviously you're trying very hard to get into these party political waters but surely you must be able to guide us a little. if somebody says some of these conclusions are partisan or politically motivated, i mean how would
you respond to that? and you've said that you're going to ask the house to vote on the conclusions of the committee. might the house not be a little confused as to what the overall conclusions of the committee are? >> in terms of how members voted and their motives for doing so, that is for them to say. they're all present and will undoubtedly do so. what i would say is that the motion that we are tabling in the house will concentrate on the issue of parliament being mislead of specific evidence presented to this committee. that was the main agreement for the committee in its latest inquiry and in large part, indeed almost entirely on those specific issues this committee was unanimous. so therefore whatever additional statements which proved more controversial which were included in the report, the main findings of the committee which relate to misleading evidence given to the select committee, this committee was wholly
agreed and therefore when we come to have the debate i hope that that is the area where all those who contributed to the debate will concentrate. >> thank you very much. lucy manning from itv news. could i maybe ask one mp to explain why they think rupert murdoch isn't fit to run a company? and another mp to explain why they think rupert murdoch is fit? and for those who are found guilty of misleading parliament, are you going to be taking them to the parliamentary cell? what is the punishment? >> can i have a volunteer from either side? >> why don't you answer -- [inaudible] >> well in terms of what the consequences are, to some extent, not for the first time this committee is exploring uncharted water. we have gone as far as to say that we wish to have this matter drawn to the attention of the house and it is for the house to
decide what consequences follow. but there will be others with more none and experience than me presumably advise on what potential consequences could be. now, -- >> let's be clear. we were when we made the decision yesterday on the report we were given an amendment with a very set wording and as you well know, description whether someone is fit and proper person is a matter one considers when deciding whether someone can hold a u.k. broadcasting license. it is a very precise definition. we can proper it out but a fit person. that makes, sounds like committee is making a judgment based on legal ruling made by the media regulator in the u.k. that is not something we investigated. you may have all sornts of personal opinions of rupert murdoch and his company and way he conducts his affairs. that is not something we took evidence on and
something we thought were not in the position to take position on. what we weren't in a position to do make a decision who misled parliament based on their knowledge. that is what we vetted. that is what we took evidence on. and that is what we published in substance and agreed on in unanimity. >> and alternative view? jim sheridan. >> the reason i support the statement, rupert murdoch is not a fit person to run an international organization i think harken back to the fundamentals in the sense that news international, news corp, in my view anyway, acted as if they were above and beyond the law and to suggest as some people suggest there was some sort of glass ceiling that didn't reach rupert murdoch or indeed james murdoch in the words of an a report, astonishing to suggest that huge amounts of money was paid out to people with who senior executives not knowing about it is
incredible. so people, and i think the general public will draw the conclusion that as astonishing, people at that level, running a company, didn't know what was happening. so as i said earlier, rupert murdoch was the top of the tree. therefore he, i believe, should carry the can. and in terms of james murder murdoch, if this was scottish court or scottish committee i think verdict would be not proven. >> [inaudible]. >> to me quite clearly rupert murdoch is a fit person to run international company. he has been running businesses since before i was born. he has successful businesses. employed00 of thousands of people around the world. he has made a huge difference to the media industry. we've seen absolutely no evidence to suggest that rupert murdoch was aware of any of these things that were going on at news international, at "news of the world". if it had been, if i thought he had been aware of what
was going on and he deliberately covered himself and maybe committed any crime in doing so then i would have been happy to say i don't think he a fit person to run a company. we've seen absolutely no evidence to suggest that was the case. yes, of course he has made mistakes. of course james murdoch has made mistakes. making mistakes, we all make mistakes. i make dozens every day and hands up anyone here who hasn't made mistakes. we all make mistakes. we all wish we had done things differently from time to time. hindsight can be a wonderful thing but to take that to say this person is not a fit person to run a major international company when he has been doing that for decades seems to be not only way over the top but also completely ludicrous. >> the bottom line we had no evidence on this. and it seems to me that even in a report as partisan and down political lines as this one was voted on, no member of the committee could find in their hearts to say either james or rupert murdoch had misled the
committee. nobody. even in the report that as published. therefore, it did appear to us something negative had to be found to say about rupert murdoch since nobody was going to conclude that either he or his son had misled our committee. and therefore this line about rupert murdoch not being a fit person which echoes ofcom's fit and proper test was stuck in on basis of no evidence presented to the committee whatsoever and we just could not support it. as i say, even though many, many votes went against my point of view on james murdoch and corporate culture as news corporation, i would definitelily have voted for the report had that language not been put in it. >> david grossman, bbc "newsnight". you will be aware that the questioning so far has concentrate ad lot on the divisions within the committee. can i ask tom watson, why was it so important to get in that line about rupert murdoch being a fit person
to run a major international company when the expense has been or cost of getting that line in has been allowing opponents of this process to portray it as along party lines, as political pay back or whatever? >> point, david, there is judgement you have to make with these reports whether you go for a weaker report and getting unanimity or whether you stand up for what you, steadfastly belief and where i came to and obviously majority of nonconservative members came to was that we needed to raise the bar. for me that was because in the last report in 2009, the truth is we were negligent. we made a mistake. we invited rebekah brooks, the chief executive of the company to give evidence on three occasions and on three occasions she rebuffed us and we decided that at the last minute not to compel
her to give evidence and that was because there was huge amounts of pressure placed on the committee. there was an election looming. so there was time pressures. there were also sort of political pressures in my view for us to do that. and i didn't want us to be accused in 12 months time of ducking our responsibility. i wanted the committee to be courageous and confident and come to a view about the most powerful media mogul in this country and it would have been wrong for those "news of the world" journalist who is lost their jobs and for those victims and for those people actually facing justice, for us not to comment on rupert murdoch just because of who he is. we've got an honest disagreement here. you can see that but i, i just felt that it was important that we, that a member of, individual members of the committee and collectively we spoke out. >> just to add to that, for david, when the game was up in terms of the one rogue
reporter, as you will see from the text here, possibly two rogue journalists, one of whom shouldn't be named because of criminal proceedings, what we saw from news corporation to our mind and it is relayed in the report, was a clear strategy. we were being invited to blame tom crone and colin . . . .d not just conclusions regarding rupert murder of, that we simply declined that invitation. >> according to my good friend and colleague last week we made the comment -- [inaudible] been asking the question what is the people at the top of news international not been identified, some sort of blame whatsoever? i have to say --
[inaudible] >> the committee's unanimous decision in a recorded vote summoned both james and rupert murdoch. so unlike perhaps, we weren't. we were united. we we just strongly disagree on where the evidence conclusion came out of the. >> that's true. yes. >> i'm from the financial times. i'm not a lobby reporter. wasn't open to the conservative members of the committee to publish a dissenting report, a minority report? and if it was, could one of them please explain why they chose not to do it? >> simply on procedural issues. obviously any member of select committee could prepare in minority report, but it actually we have emphasized repeatedly a very large part of this report was unanimous, therefore it was
probably more sensible that where there were divisions it was made clear, the were recorded in the back of the report. but the fact that large first part of the report was supported by everyone, with something which i think all my colleagues felt was the most important outcome. >> hello, not all conservative members on the committee agreed with each of them on every aspect of the report. so it wasn't that we have sort of a block conservative view on these matters. so there was, it would seem to be feasible to have a minority vote because of months before of us, if you look at the division we vote in different ways on different amendments. [inaudible] >> we voted against the report.
>> but if that sense wasn't in the report we would i have voted in favor. >> ben webster from the times. i just ask adrian saunders, impressed the chairman as will come if you go to the other way, then as the only lib dem member who voted from the committee, then it would've been split which would have meant, correct me if i'm wrong here, john's vote would've come into play and the report would have been rejected. and if that is the case, just ask mr. saunders, you have a lot of responsibility there for your vote, and why did you decide to do with the labour members? and did you consult other people in your party? >> we all collective responsibility as a committee to seek the truth. and from the evidence that was presented from my experience of the previous committee that looked at hacking, and in particular the evidence that was
presented on this one, i took a decision on that. and any one member at the end of the day could be that person holding the balance of power, depending on how other members made their mind up. [inaudible] along party lines. it certainly wasn't other divisions and other parts. house in the chair would have exercised his casting vote, i have absolutely no idea at all. and i think it would be probably wrong for the chairman to give an opinion, because he can only cast that vote in the circumstances in which it aris arises. >> indeed. what i would say is that -- [laughter] it is a matter of some regret to me that the committee was not able to produce a unanimous report, particularly went large number of the committee was able to reach agreement.
i'm sorry that in a sense the strength of unanimous conclusions has been diluted by the fact that the press conference and attention outside of it will focus on areas where the committee wasn't able to agree. yes? >> gene with "the wall street journal." and you just clarify which aspects of the report were unanimously supported? and also which individuals could be accused of contempt? >> i think if you look at the voting in the back, it becomes apparent. but in terms of the main conclusions, those relating to the individual's names, specifically, tom crone, colin myler, those conclusions were agreed unanimously. >> thank you. andy bell, five news. on this one what you think the public is supposed to make of this? because we've had months with a been seen to support in the
leveson inquiry and all the rest of the. this was an opportunity to give a lead in to say what you think it we've ended up with a committee report which is split down party lines. i know -- [inaudible] but you have come away and yet with a report which does lack credibility. that must be a matter of great disappointment to the. i'm resuming to all members of the committee spent in actual fact as i said earlier, the main part of this committee in his most recent inquiry was to the question of whether not we would be blamed for the evidence we were given but it was on that subject we attempted to table a motion to parliament. there is no division within the committee. so to that extent this is a unanimous report to parliament that the committee was misled by named individuals. >> you probably notice from individual members of this committee that they are all unique in their strong views and wheels. and i happen to think that that is a good thing but it does mean that sometimes you get split
reports. i have no doubt that you will be able to interpret that report and put both used to the public so that they can form their own future it's my view they have already formed the view on rupert murdoch's company, and this is yet, this further shows how power corrupts the institution to the united kingdom. >> just, i mean, clearly what is perceived out there s. also depends on how you report this press conference. but i just take you back to the question from gary wright at the outset. if you look at 163, the bigger picture of what everyone knew, and you look at the division back, the committee, and there could be application in that paragraph, the committee was pretty much unanimous because it was 9-1 in favor. this paragraph is asking about
astonishment. >> do you conservative members now face a difficult choice in the chamber as to how to vote, and whether that vote will be perceived of voting the murdoch's? and also in terms of the report, where is the whole affair demonstrates huge failing of corporate governance and company and its parent's news corporation, is that the view of the whole committee? what would you recommend news corporation shareholders to do? >> well, the question has already been answered, because the motion a comes before the house will be about parliament being misled and we'll all be able to support that motion. so that question doesn't arise. as to the failures of -- this is a great example. i voted against it. we didn't vote as a block.
there clearly was failures of corporate governance at news corporation, there's no doubt about that. the committee has taken to task. that's right improper. but it's not really for members of the select committee to be inviting news corporation shareholders and what they do and don't do. that's just wildly outside our committee, and that's what comes back back to the fact that the fit and proper lighting will concentrate on is what prevents us from being able to agree a report to the house. and yes, of course it is a huge shame. >> the chairman said earlier the purpose of the motion would be to decide whether people are guilty of contempt of parliament. we are all agreed, and that is the substance of the poor, it's what we are investigating, the first time it's been done since the 1950s. it is -- all the opportunities of interest.
>> i will point out that mr. colin myler is the editor of the "new york daily news," and we have just found that he has misled a select committee of parliament. i would hope a little bit of attention would be paid to the unanimous finding of the committee when named individuals misled parliament. and furthermore with a very good question posed by lucy manning, which if somebody comes in front of parliament analyze to it, what happens next? the fact is we don't necessary have the procedures in place and we will therefore be referring it to parliament to find out what to do. but his conclusions have been drawn about people misleading parliament on which we were united. there is a lot in the support of which they could be completely agreed. and you know that's the shame that we weren't able to agree on the report itself but the line about rupert murdoch. >> thank you. james cusick from the
independent. is any news corp advisor attempted contact or influence the outcome of this report? and i know that some members of the committee have been contacted, i think by fred michel, but anyone else? >> welcome in terms terms of the evidence, which i think rupert murdoch presented to lisbon and four, lisbon contacts which it is called, and this committee, i mean, they named a number of members which are those currently on the committee and, indeed, members of the previous committee. i certainly have spoken to fred michel. i always adopted a policy of an open door, not just in this inquiry but all inquiries, but if people wish to come to talk to me about, to get the point of you i will listen to the. but the question about whether or not they attempted to influence to the extent that they were putting their capes, but they didn't do anything which was improper, i heard people came to see me who have just a strong view in the other
direction. >> i just completely, i was exact with the chairman said, i can put my hand on my heart and say nobody has ever tried to influence what i said in a corporate if anybody knows anything about me they would know it would be -- try to influence what i think the i think i'm sufficiently independently minded, to be completely, you know, i won't be affected by endless attempts. certain i can put my hand on my heart and say i actually -- that actually did not happen. >> that would be counterproductive to try to influence philip in terms of changing any of his opinions in any report. and likewise myself, i don't know fred michel. they have not contacted me during this inquiry and i cannot
despite my name being there in leveson, remember anyone contacting are trying to influence me on a previous inquiry because that would be ridiculous and stupid i would think. [inaudible] [laughter] from news international. >> i don't think i have been lobbied. >> yes, front row. >> this all looks like a bit of a shambles, mr. chairman. you've ended up with a report that half the committee voted against. do you consider that you failed? >> no, because i think as i said, most of my colleagues have spoken have said, that the main findings of the committee if the area which we were asked to examine which whether parliament had been misled, the committee voted unanimously and i hope, therefore, that will be what
people concentrate on. that may be a big no, but i would like to think that people will concentrate on that, and certainly that would be the message that we will be relaying to the house of commons for motion. >> it was put to our discussion that if you leave this light out that we will bear the support, and he decide not to pay something for. it is all right for people to different political views to disagree indefensible fashion on things that are close to the heart and about which they get very much. the news -- he was completed within his rights to do so. it is not a bad thing and not a shambles when people have genuine disagreement in principle, disagree take a vote and put those agreements on the record he had every right to do so. >> you need focus on negativity and report, but i think the most important issue that is racier
today is that this committee has expose criminal activity to establish press and media. that has led the leveson inquiry -- [inaudible] so i know it's always a comfort zone to be in a negative zone, we are hopefully shone the light on what was criminal activity and also what was not. >> the report says that rupert murdoch's self portrayal as an opera proctor was, you consider, a misleading account of his involvement and influence of the newspapers. are you accusing him of misleading us? >> that was, that was, that is my amendment and you've got the text there. what we've found, what we found on times when it is soon to come
is they forgot, didn't remember, or as tom said, this is such a small part of my empire, our empire, that we didn't pay it too much attention. and their weird testimony which is recounted from rebekah brooks, that when chief executive should speak to rupert murdoch every other day. you can draw your own conclusions from that. this is a fruitlessly, of course. this shouldn't be a focus simply on robert byrd ah -- rupert murdoch because there's a focus of the news international. if there was one phrase from the last report that resounded around the world including australia i think, the faceless collective amnesia. if there's one phrase apart from rupert murdoch which should possibly tackle in the same weight in the support, it's one
that is used in amendments by me, from the and from tom watson, but the question that our colleague adrian saunders first asked in a session, and that was about willful blindness. and that phrase, willful blindness, in respect to the whole corporate conclusions be the failure to follow up very public wrongdoing, not just on n the phone talking, and discipline the perpetrators, i think that phrase should receive focus as well. >> hi. rupert murdoch to give evidence to the committee. some slightly sort of, i don't quite understand why concerted members of discussion about rupert murdoch was some of ultraviolet to the committee but perhaps they could explain the. and furthermore why did not propose any alternative amendment if he disliked the characterization of rupert
murdoch? and in particular why don't they support amendment vis-à-vis the fit person statements? >> first of all, in terms of, well, why do we not put an alternative, that was an amendment before. we were voting to restate the status quo of the report. so you don't put forward an amendment to an amendment that has not yet been voted on. that's just, yeah, i don't we understand your point really. >> go on. >> that's fine. >> we have to decide whether rupert murdoch misled us and what he said department of an no one proposed at any point that he misled parliament. now, there is in the corporate, a next step actually, the corporate line, that was an amendment i supported in the votes. and there we were critical of
the cup as a whole putting too much emphasis on the river of internal investigation and the action been taken by the cover. that is a criticism of james murdoch as was other executives named in the portraits i think we have been critical both of his role in some of the things he said. but what no one has proposed is that he misled parliament. >> nobody said that rupert murdoch wasn't a just about party to the report your i don't think anybody said that. i think what you said was we didn't agree on conclusion in a report about rupert murdoch. [inaudible] >> if you look at the decisions and the vacuous he would've greeted the status quo of the report without that particular amendment. [inaudible] >> we don't believe he misled -- we were looking at, the whole purpose of our inquiry was a people mislead the committee in our report back in 2009?
we don't believe, i sent sealy -- i'm not sure that anyone about rupert murdoch misled the committee. we haven't seen any evidence that james murdoch misled the committee. we concluded that the three individuals that we've already mentioned did mislead the committee. that's why we didn't agree with the conclusion about rupert murder. [inaudible] there was no evidence there to suggest that. >> you've already. it does say, this was not done by one party voting. at the end of the conclusions and accept,. [inaudible] so that his comment in the conclusions and that would've stood even without the additional line that he was soaking we have. we had to divide on the whole report.
>> were there any objections from committee to one of their members putting out their own version of the book before the report was finalized? what charged you take mr. chote to make sure that no privileged information given to the gain was used in dial m. for murdoch, especially given the finest of report on page 312? >> well, what i would say is that almost all the evidence that was presented to this committee was published on the internet almost the same day, or very shortly afterwards. the terms of privileged information which is not available actually does very little which we didn't make public. the ones we did make public is where we're specifically asked not to do so. i was not aware that tom watson in his book -- which was not made public but perhaps he would like to address that. >> thank you. good to see you again.
[laughter] firstly, your service held a broad so i'm told i can't see you for libel. secondly, all the information in the book comes from either public sources, and were i thought the committee may what's the evidence i submitted it, some of which was used, most of which was accused. because of the justice issue. but i'd like to put a question to you. can you tell me why paul staines held the need to destroy his hard drive after he broke the story? i'm not sure this is an opportunity for the committee to ask questions of the press to it's not normal contacts. i would ask you to pursue that after. >> josh holliday from "the guardian."
you are each newsgroup in the report to waive legal privilege. why do you think that would be significant and would you consider revisiting your conclusion if it is significant? >> well, we, i think it was a chance for the committee to persuade news corporation to withdraw privilege to the loose report. but possibly we also got -- after the evidence of rupert murdoch gave to levinson last week when he was specifically asked about this by justice leveson. and he seemed to attack burton & copeland in a statement way kind of lengthy executives for the cover-up. and there was this mumbled comment to do in the corporate and i think be really important that we just clear things up to it that report in 2006 i like is that there was wrongdoing, other than phone hacking, then it shows that there is a conscious
-- consciousness of the company at the time and executives should have acted. i think it was too late for us to take a view on that. but you asked, i believe it was a unanimous view of the committee that that report should have privileged and should be submitted to levinson. [inaudible] >> documents that we receive any investigation came as a result of privilege being way. clive goodman opinion, the notes from mr. pike's conversation with colin myler all came as result of privilege being way. so i think it's -- [inaudible] >> one of the difficult and committing conclusions in this report is been that many people know far more than we give it that includes lawyers, claimants and civil claims. because even though those have been settled, there were disclosures affected by court confidentiality. in the gordon taylor case, a limited waiver of legal privilege was given. some people might speculate that might have the effect of just
dumping tom crone and colin myler. but we also asked for a waiver of privilege to be given in the max clifford case. we just wanted everybody to come clean and tell us exactly what they knew. and they refused to do that. i just want, there are other parts of this report apart from rupert murdoch. there's a section on the police. the police and cps failed over a long period of time, not just mr. yates and others. but one of the things we don't cover in a poor, the report covers a lot of ground, i made this comment is more interesting legal magazines come that there was a succession of lawyers, burton & copeland, indeed michael silver lease qc who continue to represent the corporation and civil claims, who we know knew that what news international was telling us about one rogue reporter for
defense was untrue. now, it's come out in our conversations and discussions with the speakers council of parliament is not what is referred to not strictly accord for legal quotes. but we've not seen seen anyone of those lawyers resigning on principle. when they knew that what we've been told and the general public was being told was not the truth. >> to say, that there was much disagreement in the committee about this idea. i don't believe lawyers have to represent their clients best interests within the lockout and that is all they have to do, i don't see any occasion for lawyer to resign for having done his job as he is obliged to do under the law. on the matter of burton & copeland, i do, i'm glad you brought this up. i do think it's an important one. this is an amendment which i was very pleased to support, it's absolute a quite right and i would like to take this
opportunity to call on news corporations management and standards committee to release burton & copeland from privilege at once so that we can have transparency and be quite sure that there is nothing further being concealed. that is the opposition. he was right to make the minute and received unanimous support from everybody on the committee. >> to questions for mr. woodson. neither words fit and proper are in the corporate what do you think happens with you on ofcom to look at the evidence presented to the committee? and also you call for this parliament to have been in corporate to continue to happen urgently? >> okay. just -- just to be precise we use the words not fit person but we don't use the and proper to say get that right.
and on the scottish parliament part. look, we saw jack yesterday. he was a target of hacking. and we know that thomas sheraton, now knows he was a target of hacking when he was a member of the scottish parliament. when we found out similar things had gone on in the westminster partner, we ordered a new inquiry. sabah told party leaders of scotland can come together and organize their own inquiry to find out what was scope of the intrusion and the privacy was, and where the focus was. >> chairman. i wonder if you could guide us on a bit of a process in terms of the motion that is going to go before the house. you say in the report, the press release which is the own misleading committee. can you only put motion before the house to the committee unanimously agrees, or whether come down to the vote as well that they may split along same
lines has done so for? and secondly, what is the cash to i know you know parliamentary guidance on what the penalty for being contempt upon my become but what with the committee must have some sort of you on what you would like to see perhaps an apology? >> welcome in terms of the motion, my hope is that segment will be agreed upon. the reason the motion will focus on specifically misleading the committee is because that is the matter for the house of commons. on other matters like committees report, the governments respond within a period, and the committee can sometimes request a debate. that would be the normal proceeding for us like many a report. but in this instance, we are reporting what we believe have been a contempt, which is a very different matter. and, therefore, a debatable motion in the house seemed an appropriate way forward and it will focus specifically on whether or not attempt a good. now, your question if the house
agreed to have been content, what happens next, i believe there is precedence, although quite a long time ago, for a defendant to be called before the house, to be abolished and have the houses conclusion made clear to them. but to be quite honest i don't know. i suspect that would be a matter of debate, perhaps by standards and privileges in house by leader of the house and others. at this stage we are intending to table the motion, and no doubt that parking will be involved in consequent discussions about what would happen if it is then in the house of commons. [inaudible] spent contempt of parliament. and certainly that is not the case at the moment, but i think we need to find consequence for misleading >> we could spend hours on
that particular debate but perhaps we shouldn't. last question, then. yeah. the. >> jean whalen with "the wall street journal." is it possible then your motion will accuse rupert or james murdoch of contempt or only hinton myler and crone. >> only not conclude rupert period of time or james murdoch are potentially guilty of con contempt. who presented misleading evidence to this committee and therefore parliament. >> clearly we're sadly after five years not finished yet. we've not been able to go further because of the police investigation. there are other things that may emerge which may warrant a reexamination of the evidence. and i just stress here the human cost and the
glenn mulcaire was not operating in isolation. because we have not had the database published information, commissioner, we've not been able to the make the link between what mulcaire was doing and detective and they were doing and compare it with the evidence we were giving. other private detectives were doing other things at the same time including mounting surveillance over at least one member of the committee. it's been admitted in the civil case that, civil cases that computer hacking went on. all the piece of this jigsaw have yet to be put together but at the end of the day, the human cost of this, the intrusion into ordinary people's lives really has to be at the forefront of our thoughts and i would hope your thoughts. this was an organization, with its newspapers, that gave moral lectures to the public but acted as we now know immorally and criminally itself and held
itself therefore above the law. >> thank you. we have no more questions. thank you very much. >> quick reminder that we have all our coverage of the hearings related to the british phone-hacking investigation available on our website. go to c-span.org and search in our video library. president obama today returned from afghanistan where yesterday he and afghan president hamid karzai signed a strategic partnership agreement and on facebook today we're asking, what your thoughts are on u.s.-afghanistan relations. join the conversation at facebook.com/cspan.
live now to the justice department for a press conference with attorney general eric holder and health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius. >> today i'm joined by secretary kathleen sebelius of the department of health and human services, the assistant attorney general for criminal division, lanny brewer. deputy sean brois of fbi. and gary cantrell and dr. peter bodetti, deputy administrator of program integrity for centers for medicare and medicaid services. in announcing the latest achievements in the federal government's ongoing fight against health care fraud of the as of today as part of a coordinated, nationwide takedown the medicare fraud strike force, a joint initiative led by departments of justice and hhs, comprised of federal, state and local investigators and law enforcement officials from across the country, we've charged 107 defendants in seven different cities for
their alleged participation in medicare fraud schemes involving approximately $452 million in false billings. this is the highest amount of alleged false medicare billings involved in a single takedown in the strike force's five-year history. the defendants charged include doctors, nurses, social workers, health care company owners, and others who are accused of a range of serious offenses including health care fraud, conspiracy to commit health care fraud, money laundering and violations of the anti-kickback statutes. this takedown would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of roughly 500 agents and investigators nationwide from the fbi and state and local offices to the hhs office of the inspector general and multiple medicare fraud control units. working in close cooperation these dedicated professionals launched and advanced numerous extensive investigations, executed
approximately 20 search warrants and have arrested or taken into custody 91 of the charged defendants. i'm grateful too and proud of each one of them. their actions underscore the justice department's determination to move aggressively bringing to justice those who would violate our laws and fraud in the medicare program for their personal gain. the investigation is the at heart of this administration's commitment to protecting the american people from all forms of health care fraud which as we've seen in far too many communities can drive up health care costs and even threaten the strength and integrity of our entire health care system. three years ago this month this commitment inspired the department's of justice and health and human services to launch a joint initiative known as the health care fraud prevention and enforcement action team known as heat, to leverage the strength of federal, state and local partnerships in taking the fight against health care fraud to a new level. a driving force behind
heat's success is criminal medicare strike forces which have charged more than 1330 defendants with more than $4 billion in false filings. i'm pleased to say our invests in this work are yielding ex-tror narrowedry returns. over last three fiscal years for every dollar we have spent fighting against health care fraud, we have returned on average $7 to the u.s. treasury, to the medicare trust fund and others. now despite these remarkable results much more remains to be done. fortunately our determination to build on the progress that we've made and strengthen the partnerships we've established across all levels of government and law enforcement has never been stronger. and as today's historic announcement proves, our approach has never been more effective. thank you all once again for your outstanding and your ongoing contributions. it is now my privilege to turn things over to a key leader and partner this this work, my friend, kathleen
sebelius. >> thank you, general, and i want to start by recognizing the wonderful leadership of attorney general eric holder and our entire collaborative team at the justice department this effort. with me on stage as the general has already said, are partners from the fbi, and the justice department as well as our inspector general's office and our office of integrity at cms. but we are clearly here as representative of literally thousands of people throughout this country who are now focus and determined to stamp out fraud and in the medicare program. today's historic takedown is really just the latest milestone in the obama administration's coordinated campaign to stamp out fraud in our health care system. when president obama took
office he asked the attorney general and me to make fraud prevention a cabinet-level priority. and since then we have more than quadrupled the number of anti-fraud task force teams operating around the country, charging hundreds of individuals with seeking to defraud medicare and medicaid of billions of taxpayer dollars. now those efforts got another boost when two years ago the president signed the affordable care act. one of the strongest anti-health care fraud acts in american history. the law provided new resources to help law enforcement catch criminals and establish tougher sentences for those who got caught. it established new authority to prevent fraud in the first place by spotting bad actors and phony claims before they were able to do major damage. and today's takedown opens a window into this critical new approach. so in the past the
government was often two or three steps behind perpetrators. quickly paying out nearly every properly-submitted claim and then, later trying to track down the bad guys after we got a tip, so-called pay and chase. it meant we were often showing up after the criminals already skipped town, taking all of their fraudulent billings with them. now we're analyzing patterns and trends and in claims data. instead of just going claim by claim. for example, in one of the schemes brought down today medicare investigators spotted a high volume of claims from a mental health service provider that just didn't make medical sense. they referred the matter quickly to special agents from our office of inspector general who drilled deeper into the data and ultimately found evidence of fraud. so it was the data analysis that launched case. it was also data analysis that accelerated the investigation, allowing our
special agents to conduct targeted reviews and interviews. and we're taking this successful model and repeating it in cases across the country. so this coordinated approach is also why the centers for medicare & medicaid services will stop paying 52 provider organizations connected to today's arrest until we have investigated all of them fully. we have this authority thanks to the affordable care act and it will insure that no one who has been part of an illegal scheme can keep cashing in. so for a long time we've been talking about the need to strengthen medicare for the future. last week our trustees report showed that the affordable care act, including some of these key anti-fraud provisions, have already extended the life of the medicare trust fund by eight years to 2024. we want to continue building on these efforts to insure every taxpayer dollar is spent wisely and to protect
medicare and medicaid for generations to come. and i'd like to now turn the podium over to assistant attorney general lanny brewer. >> thank you, secretary sebelius. today we're announcing charges against 107 defendants in seven strike force cities across the country. from los angeles to chicago, to miami. these defendants allegedly submitted over $450 million in fraudulent claims to the medicare program. this represents the largest medicare fraud takedown in department history. as measured by the amount of alleged fraudulent billings. as charged in the indictments these fraud schemes were committed by people up and down the chain of health care providers, from doctors, nurses and
licensed clinical social workers, to office managers and patient recruiters. court papers detail the lengths to which these defendants allegedly went to defraud the medicare program. in baton rouge, for example, seven defendants are charged with running two community mental health centers, or cmhcs, that submit the $225 million in fraudulent claims to medicare, the largest cmhc scheme ever aled. these defendants allegedly recruited elderly, drug-addicted and mentally ill patients from nursing homes and homeless shelters in order to submit false claims on their behalf. they also allegedly falsified patient notes and attendance records and forged signatures of medical professionals, all to make it appear as though these
patients were receiving medical services when they were not. in fact, they never received these services. the defendants didn't stop there. according to court papers multiple defendants went so far as to steal incriminating documents from the u.s. attorney's office in baton rouge while one bragged he had had a bonfire with fabricated patient notes. in houston we have charged owners and operators of four ambulance, private ambulance companies with billing medicare for millions of dollars worth of phony or necessary ambulance rides. in miami, detroit, and other cities we charged dozens of other defendants with equally fraudulent schemes. today's operation marks the fourth in a series of historic medicare fraud takedowns over the past two
years. thighs -- these indictments remind us that medicare is an attractive target for criminals but it should also remind those criminals that they risk prosecution and prison time every time they submit a false claim. if you don't believe it ask the former owner of a mental health center company in miami who was sentenced last year to 50 years in prison. or his two coowners, each of whom were sentenced to 35 years. the medicare fraud strike force is now in nine cities across the country and our records shows we are achieving great results. i'm honored to lead the criminal division as it partners with the u.s. attorney's offices, the fbi. hhs, and our other many state and local law enforcement colleagues to fight medicare fraud and to hold medicare fraudsters
accountable. thank you. i would now like to turn it over to my friend and colleague, sean joyce. >> thank you, lanny. and good afternoon, everybody. as attorney general and secretary sebelius have noted health care fraud impacts all americans. it drives up the cost of health care. and it makes it more challenging for our seniors and those who are seriously ill to obtain the care they need. those who commit health care fraud operate in big cities and small towns alike. their schemes vary in size, scope and sew fistcation. but they all share the twisted belief that medicare fund are free for the taking. health care fraud is a lucrative business. that is why more and more criminal enterprises are getting into the act. these syndicates share strategies to steal money and avoid detection. they shift from one jurisdiction to the next to find new patients and new
victims. they are savvy to health care ruse and regulations and they know how to exploit the system. this makes health care fraud all the more difficult to identify and stop. it shows the importance of working with our partners in the fight against health care fraud so we can obtain the types of results you see here today. the fbi is currently investigating more than 2600 cases of health care fraud. more than 500 agents and analysts are using the intelligence it identify emerging schemes and techniques. as part of the health care fraud prevention and enforcement action team the fbi is committed to preventing and prosecuting health care fraud. today's arrests and the ongoing success of the medicare fraud strike force indicate these efforts are producing results. in 2011 with our health care fraud law enforcement partners we obtained more than 300 disruptions and
dismantlements of criminal enterprises. we charged more than 1500 individuals and obtained over 700 convictions. our combined efforts as already been noted returned over $4 billion to the u.s. treasury. today's takedown is the result of a strong partnership at all levels, not only the national but the state and local. but our work is not done. the health care system is a critical piece of our nation's infrastructure. we must do everything in our power to protect the integrity of the medicare system and our broad health care system. now i'd like to turn things over to deputy inspector general gary cantrell of hhs. >> thank you, deputy director, joyce and good afternoon. we're all too familiar with the threat medicare fraud poses to the american taxpayers but it also exposes some of our most vulnerable citizens to identity theft and in some cases even patient harm. today the office of
inspector general deployed more than 200 special agents and forensic specialists across the country to execute arrests and serve warrants. we worked closely with the fbi, justice prosecutors and other federal and local partners to insure the success and safety of these operations. today's strike force indictments and arrests hold accountable more than 100 individuals who have allegedly defrauded our health care programs and taxpayers of more than $450 million. they also send a message to would-be criminals that there is a price to pay for stealing from medicare. the strike force model has made us faster and more effective. we use claims data to analyze suspected fraud and build cases more efficiently. the team-based approach insures additional investigative steps are carried out quickly and in coordination with prosecutors. digital forensics enables us to analyze medical, financial and other digital records to ferret out fraud
and criminal conspiracies. instead of working from the bottom up we target the fraud at its source. we also refer providers to cms for payment suspension or other administrative actions, stopping additional dollars from going out the door. oig is committed to utilizing these tools to minimize the loss of program dollars. the indictments announced today demonstrate that we're fighting back. we're leveraging data, technology, and investigative expertise to achieve record-setting results in fraud enforcement. we recovered more than $7 billion for every dollar spent fighting health care fraud. at oig and our partners announced record-setting results before and we're breaking previous records today and because of this partnership i know it won't be the last time. thank you and now i would like to introduce dr. peter vadeti, cms.
>> thank you, deputy inspector cantrell, one of my close partners in fighting health care fraud. today the centers for medicare & medicaid services has imposed payment suspensions and other appropriate administrative actions against 52 providers to insure that further program dollars do not go out the door. these providers of various types including home health agencies, pain management clinics and ambulance services will stop receiving payment until the investigations are resolved and appropriate administrative claims determinations have been made. these actions are being taken under one of the powerful anti-fraud provisions in the affordable care act, authorizing suspension of payments pending investigation of a credible allegation of fraud. today also represents an unprecedented degree of cooperation among cms, the inspector general and the department of justice and the fbi which made it possible to tie our civil
administrative actions together with the criminal ones. today's historic takedown is just the beginning. in the near future we'll see results which will demonstrate that we're able to prevent fraud from ever escalating to the massive level we have seen and brought down today. now i'm pleased to turn things back over to the secretary and the attorney general. >> [inaudible]. >> you said that somebody stole documents from the u.s. attorney's office? is that -- >> right. well, well, we allege that in connection with a civil-related action here that some of the defendants in baton rouge were in the united states attorney's office during civil discovery and in the course of it, took and or destroyed documents. >> was anyone watching them at the time? >> i can't go any further than that at this point. >> payment blocks on any of the $452 or do you have any
indication how much you're going to be able to recover? >> i'm sorry what? how much are we going to be able to recover? we don't know that. we will be we will be calculating that as we proceed with the analysis of the administrative actions we've taken and see where funds are. >> these are funds allegedly fraudulently billed have gone out the door? >> the funds that were mentioned so far are the ones that have gone out the door but the actions we've taken today, will stop payments that are already, claims already in place and any new ones that are coming in. >> with -- >> that have not been paid yet. >> with different providers from 107 individuals? >> from the 52 providers who are the ones who bill us. >> just to clarify, when we speak about $450 million, that's the amount sought by the defendants. that is what they were seeking. that isn't necessarily even for payments made. so you shouldn't assume that 450 million was actually paid out. they sought to steal 450
million. that was the total amount they were requesting. >> how much was paid out? >> [inaudible] >> what are the emerging scam areas? the trends? >> i think is, i believe the secretary mentioned there was a couple of the new things with the ambulance fraud in this specific case. and obviously we're continuing with our partners, hhs, to look and identify the new techniques. i think as i mentioned one of the critical things i think we do uniquely in this with our partners is really through data analysis where we end up targeting the specific cities. so it's not just out there, sort of in a, really a disparate way. it is really focused, intelligence-driven approach identifying these critical cities where it is really promulgated. >> mr. holder --
>> try to clarify one thing. i think, back to the earlier question, the 52 providers are the billing operators. so their payment has been suspended. some of these individuals who are part of the 106 who were actually arrested today are in the umbrella organizations of those providers. so we stopped payment on a providers. we will be conducting full investigations but, i just wanted to clarify, they are part of the same operators. >> mr. holder? ask you a question about the trial of former major league baseball player roger clemens. a key witness in the prosecution said today that his testimony may only be 50/50. the judge is considering whether the jury should consider that testimony. in deliberation. what would you say to people who would say this is not the best use of
prosecutorial resources, rather, when key witness may only be as good as a coin flip? >> i have not heard the references that you've made there. one has to view the cases in their totality. i don't know what that witness said. i don't know the context which that statement might been made. charges are serious ones. it is about testifying falsely before congress. on that basis i think it was justified use of our resources to bring the case. >> mr. holder, two years since the gulf oil spill. first criminal charges were brought recently. can you talk about when you expect further criminal charges or a civil settlement or trial to go forward at some point before you step down as attorney general? >> and when will that be? >> [inaudible]. >> i want to say as we've indicated fairly consistently from the time of the spill, it is our
intention to hold responsible all parties who were responsible for that spill and to make sure that the american people, the american taxpayers do not spend a dime for the restoration of the region. that matter is ongoing. as i indicated in the remarks that i made i guess when we announced that initial indictment. that was an initial charge. we expected that there will be others. we are working on the civil side as well as on the criminal side. i wouldn't want to put a time frame with regard to when charges will be brought but the matter is ongoing. >> -- being sued by the "new york times" and aclu over materials connected to its targeted killing program. you asked a judge for more time because there are high level consultations. what is the status of that? and do you expect to be able to release more information? [inaudible] >> well the judge was very understanding when we indicated that we did need additional time because there are high-level
consultations under way. this is an administration that wants to be as transparent as we can with regard to how we employ force in these matters. at the same time, we have to balance that against the need to protect the methods that we use to protect the american people. so we will use that time to try to make, strike that proper balance and then share information that we can. >> john brennan's remarks today, so much of the program was discussed by him. can the administration now release the opinions that are being sought and even if they're in declassified format with redactions? >> that is obviously one of the things that we are discussing. there are a whole variety of things that we, as i said, want to make available but again we have to make sure in making things available for review, to explain in a documentary way what it is the government goes through in making these determinations. we have to protect the
ability that we have to keep the american people safe so we will be going through that process over the next couple weeks or so. >> secretary sebelius, on the subject of medicare fraud and waste, the senate finance committee announced it will be accepting some feedback and one of the staffers to reduce medicare fraud and waste and, one of the staffers said that there has been a lot of concerns raised about contractors, integrity contractors, various types of them being overly aggressive. i want to see if your office is aware of any of those complaints and looking into them? >> well i'm not sure that it's directly related to fraud. we have been made aware of a couple of instances where in more the bill collection area there have been aggressive contractors working on behalf of hospital who is have allegedly engaged in tactics
of confronting patients in the hospital setting, making it clear that they were actually bill collectors and not part of the hospital system, a whole variety of, so we're in the process of actually looking into those allegations. i think that's what you may --. >> [inaudible]. various types of integrity, medicare integrity contractors. >> i'm going to let, peter if we're talking about that and let peter who is our deputy director in charge of the cms anti-fraud unit. >> we're always looking to make sure that all of our enforcement entities enconcluding our contractors are doing things appropriately. i don't know which specific allegations you're referring to but if there are pick concerns we certainly want to know about them and we'll certainly look into them. we're always aware that whenever we want to hold someone accountable either
for possible fraud or for having retained overpayments that's something that it involves a degree of interaction that sometimes raises questions like that. i don't know the exact allegations that you're talking about or complaints. >> [inaudible]. >> mr. holder? the 9th circuit today delined to allow a suit -- personally liable as retention matter. is there a check on legal advice that doj lawyers provide? >> is there a check? >> in terms of the should the legal advice of doj lawyers go unchecked if not -- [inaudible] >> i have not had a chance to review the opinion. heard about that a little before we came in so i'll have to look at the opinion and what the basis for the court's determination was but you have to understand we have very good people who work very hard and look at the law, come up with determine nations that are based on the facts, on the law as presented to them and to the extent that llc
opinions are issued, that are inconsistent with the facts, the law, our traditions, as we have emdid streeted in this administration we will repudiate them and that is what we have done with regard at least some of the opinions in connection with the matter that the 9th circuit was dealing wit. >> thank you very much. >> former house speaker newt gingrich is suspending his presidential campaign this afternoon. he will make it official today at 3:00 p.m. eastern and you will be able to watch it live on our companion network c-span. the libertarian party holds its 2012 convention this weekend in las vegas to
choose its presidential nominee. c-span coverage will start on friday night at 9:00 eastern with a two who have hour debate for candidates of libertarian party presidential nomination. at noon eastern saturday the delegates here speeches from candidates and vote on a nominee. that is also live on our companion network, c-span. between 1971 and 1973 president richard nixon secretly recorded nearly 4,000 hours of phone calls and meetings. >> always agree on the little things and then you hold on the big one. i mean, hell, i've done this so often in conversations with people. we'll concede that and make them all feel good but don't give them the big one. >> every saturday this month on c-span radio hear more of the nixon tapes including discussions with future presidents, key white house advisors and intelligence agency heads. hear conversations with gerald ford and ronald reagan and george h.w. bush. in washington, d.c. listen at 91.1 fm and xm channel
119 and c-spanradio.org. four former word leaders that won the nobel peace prize sat down to discuss global challenges to peace and prosperity. former president jimmy carter, former russian leader, mikhail gorbachev. and lech walesa the first president of post-communist poland. this is about an hour. >> good afternoon. >> hi. >> hello. great to be here and obviously a great honor for all of us to be able to see four presidents, four nobel peace prize winners and four men that changed the course of history. [applause]
>> while we're getting the a audio of our portion of our program together i know you already heard introductions to these four great men so i will be very brief. to my immediate right, president jimmy carter who was the 39th president of the united states. [applause] he was awarded the nobel peace prize in 2002 for decades of his untiring efforts to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts. president mikhail gorbachev of the soviet union. his policies of glasnost led to the downfall of communism and breakup of the soviet union in 1991. he was awarded the nobel peace prize in 1990 for helping to end the cold war. "time" magazine named him, man of the year and man of
the decade. president mikhail gorbachev. [applause] fwdeclerc is the performer if the of south africa. he was awarded nobel peace prize in 199 alongwith nelson mandela with his efforts to end apartheid and initiate the first democratic constitution throughout south africa. president today clerk. d the declerc [applause] >> and lech walesa was president of poland from 1990 to 1995. he was awarded the nobel peace prize in 1983 as founder of the solidarity movement that took pols out of communism. his contribution to the end of communism in europe and hence the end of the cold
war stands besides of that his fellow pole the pope john paul the ii and. we're all proud to have you here together on the stage. [applause] >> [inaudible]. >> is that a high-five? we are together to talk about new challenges for peace with men who have, as i said changed the course of history. but there is also with a message for all the young people who are here in this audience and all who are watching in schools, not just across america and but in many places around the world and that is, you too have the tools to bring about change. and the proof is very simple. there are many examples but perhaps the most global one happened just in 2010 in november, a series of
protests by young people started in tunisia and spread to libya and syria and yemen became known as the arab spring. they are still rewriting the future of arab world as a result of what the young people did there. and in the united states you have led the occupy wall street movement, much of it to bring about economic change, and certainly have changed the conversation. you see it in the way the news media is chrfr covering this very consequential election hire in the united states and it changed the conversation in washington. and so we want to talk to them to them about things they did to change the world and advise to you about things you can do to change the world. president carter, let me start with you. what do you think about the biggest challenges to peace today? >> i think biggest challenge is the commitment of international community to resort to war only as absolute last resort.
should apply to united nations and regional organizations like african union and others. humankind in general are much more inchroopd it -- inclined to resolve. all the major religions say, peace should come first. i worship the prince of peace, not war. and if everybody did that, if we had 2 billion christians, for instance, all of whom were committed to peace we would not have anymore wars. i might say, that islam and judaism and buddhism and hinduism are just as much committed to peace as we are as christians. so humankind has got to say, war comes last. peace comes first.
>> are there places in the world, president gorbachev that give you cause that are biggest threats to peace right now? >> translator: people are concerned everywhere and i think that once again people are asking this question that they were asking 25 years ago, will there be a war, a nuclear war? is there something fatal that is happening in the world? i have heard that. again i heard that years ago and i'm hearing it again. and we must, we agree with jimmy that, like we should not be worried, i remember,
how in the poe lit burrow one member said, it takes a couple of tanks. well, thousands of tanks can not solve problems. the most important thing is that people want change and people see that often change is not happening. there are, there were opportunities that have not been used and again it is the lack of political will. and, i am now convinced more than ever before that without more democratic politics, without democratization of, politics, without political leaders listening, without them listening to civil society, i think we will never succeed and that means that the democratically-minded people everywhere in the world should now unite and
should understand >> of course the economy, production, industry agriculture all that is important. there is more important thing. that is the proper relationship between the authorities and the people everywhere in all countries. everywhere in the world. unless we do that. unless we have governments who are practically everywhere in the world now, take a kind of condescending attitude to the people, we'll never put an end to the kind of problems that we are facing. we have not yet ended those problems. and very often the old tricks are being used in this new world, just for the
benefit of vested interests. so we must unite. we must have solidarity. we must support each other. we must work resolutely to change the world for the better. and i think that if we look at our awards and the nobel peace prize to we were awarded it for some contribution, for making a difference. but there is now a greater need to make a difference. so we too must continue to act and above all civil society. civil society must be as active, more active than before. >> let me ask you a little bit about that. then the role of the people and i'm going to start with the role of government with some examples if i may, president de klerk. last year president obama
cited imminent threat to civilians in libya in deciding to allow military power there. and we saw, i'm sure many of students here, i think something like 8.8, 9 million people have now seen this video of the fanatical hand of the lord resistance army in uganda is notorious for murdering civilians, kidnapping children. so in october the president dispatched about 100 u.s. troops to uganda and to its neighbors to try to hunt down joseph kony. there are some republicans and also some human right activists say the administration needs to do more in syria to stop the killing there. where is the role of government in modern society, do you think, president de klerk? can you make any sort of broad statement about that? has it changed? >> i think that good governance and the alternative, the opposite,
bad governance, lies at the root of improving the quality of life of people. for that reason i have formed an organization called the global leadership foundation where i brought together 34 former prime ministers, president, cabinet ministers, senior diplomats and we are all prepared to give advice to governments and we give our advice not-for-profit and we give our advice so beneath the radar. advice on how to identify what initiatives to take in order to end conflicts, in order to settle conflicts, in order to govern better. in order to get the economy going to create the ther economic -- better economic climate for foreign investment and the like. so governance is extremely important. i don't think the united
states as the only superpower in the world for the time-being can and should accept the role of the policeman of the whole world. in order -- [applause] in all countries there are governments. president roosevelt i think said there's a time for the big stick and there's a time for speaking softly. haven't we had too much big stick? and isn't it time for speaking softly? [applause] from the south africans experience i can testify that we did not change because of the pressure, because of the many big sticks wielded. at times that delayed reform. and president carter in his
speech was right when he questioned the effectiveness of sanctions and the like. and when he suggested that it is not such an effective instrumental, an effective instrument to bring about change. in the end peace can only be achieved if you get people involved in that which stands in the way of peace, to talk to each other. i don't know of any peace effort in a country torn apart by violence, by conflict, which has been achieved without former enemies sitting down, negotiating, and reaching an agreement which is then becomes part of an accord or a treaty. so i'm a great believer in what, that the world now
needs in addition to an active civil society, needs a sort of private diplomacy, to bring about the changes of hearts and minds. if we analyze the root causes of those things which is up press people, which causes so much. i would identify others too. one is we're failing to manage diversity. with globalization all countries are becoming more diverse and overwhelming majority of all the countries in the world has important minorities consisting of 10% or more of their population. are we managing diversity correctly? how do we make feel, how do we make important minorities feel that they an
appreciated voting bloc of the greater whole? instead of them feeling and actually being marge alized in the country where they have been born, where their children are being born and where their grandchildren will be born. and the second root cause of all the misery and all the suppression and all the deprivation lies in the fact that 2 1/2 billion of the 7 billion people on this earth lives in absolute misery. they are hungry, live beneath the bread line. so if we look at the bigger picture, i think we need to develop a vision and world leaders should put their hand and their heads together and develop a vision. how do we effectively manage diversity? secondly, how do we win the
war against poverty? how do we reduce that percentage of people living beneath the bread line dramatically, giving them a better life, giving them hope, giving them opportunity? [applause] >> president with lens is a, you are -- walensa, you are someone fought and won the peace prize for your people's rights to give people a living wage, give them decent working conditions, to give them the opportunity themselves to work their way out of poverty. i think it is, i certainly don't want to draw a direct comparison, when you look at the youth unemployment numbers in the united states and the difficulty that students even with a college degree now have in getting employment, there is some understanding of what it means to fight to be able to
support yourself. there is a classic picture and maybe you have seen it in your history classes, some of us are old enough to seen it while we were still alive, the classic vision of you standing up in front of workers in the gadansk shipyard and bringing about the solidarity movement which changed again the course of communism. certainly changed the course of history. tell me what you think the role today is of protests in society in bringing about the kind of change that can alleviate things like poverty, alleviate things like economic inequality? >> translator: young people today they tell the truth and, so that let us be
truthful and let us implement the truth here and on the stage. so here i am asking where is the chinese nobel peace prize winner? ask yourselves, ask yourselves and your conscience and ask yourself how we should behave in front of that, the fact that our laureates is in prison for doing what here we wanted to do, what we have been doing and but returning directly to your question, until the end the 20th century the world was very divided. continents were divided deeply within themselves. countries different from one another and the caused a fact there was a great disproportions in the development and standard of living. in the united states perhaps you could not clearly see it
that clearly but in europe we can see it perfectly well. now when we have advanced the technology so much that we can no longer become confined to single states and countries we have come to realize we have to enlarge the structures which we organize ourselves and during the lifetime of this generation we need to quickly enlarge our organizations, or otherwise we shall lead protests which have already started but will continue increasing in the future. for me as a revolutionary i believed there are three major questions that we need to answer, and, the answers to these questions, really will determine which way we will lead our countries. the first question is, what should be the economic
system in europe as a single state and then for the globalized world. certainly do not really joke or not capitalism that we have in place today. this capitalism unless we improve it, unless we reform it, will not survive this century. certainly we will retain free market economy. there is no question about that. what we have to return is private ownership. that is another kind of injust at this we have had in place. -- injustice. we can get together over a few hours and working masses have to question, humans are no longer scared of their neighbors because we're not willing to fight. well inevitably we'll seek justice and equal opportunity and just checking whoever cheats on
them. i was would love to participate in the development by improving the economic system and in order to prevent unnecessary waste and damage. this is the first question that we have no answer to. the second question is, what should be the shape of the democracy? today people do not really take consider seriously the democrats one day they elect some representatives and following day they try to riot and get rid of them by rioting in the streets. so next to that rights granted to us by democracy we need to put responsibilities on various levels whereas technology and -- our political leaders making sure they really implement their platform and first question should really be fundamental ones.
what should be the foundations that would allow stable european integrity and stable globalization foundations. half the men think it should be enough to grant ourselves in different freedoms and legal regulations will safeguard. this is half of mankind's thinking in such times. and for the future of civilization. the remaining half claims that nothing stable can be established under. sooner or later the government will really mislead you. this world, this generation has opened up, this world, that is really senses the chance, the best-ever chance for prosperity and security has to be safeguarded and, by rooting them in values. when we speak of values there are so many different values followed by different
religions or nonreligious people. and what is worse, we do not have a entity or an individual who can really identify values we can all share and values should serve as the foundation for any solution introduced into the world. if we manage to find that foundation, then we will be able to begin the construction of the new millennium which we're participating. this is the vision of a revolutionary and this is how i perceive the challenges and the opportunities for us all. [applause] >> i work loo to make one positive piece out of what president with lens is a just said, -- i was looking at old, if you
don't mind me saying, tv footage. the s.t.a.r.t. ii treaty, is that right. and at the signing ceremony what struck me was in the front row was amy, your daughter at the time. she would have been 12 years old i think and now she has a child, is your grandson about that age? >> two children, yes. >> two grand children. do you think that the opportunities for peace and prosperity, and maybe you know, nuclear peace since we were talking about the s.t.a.r.t. treaty at that point but to president walensa's point, are the opportunities for peace and prosperity good or better for your grandchildren as they were for amy? and how can the young people in this audience help assess that moving forward? >> i think the prospects for peace for my grandchildren are better than they were earlier and amy has two sons. one is 12 years old. one is just 18 months old.
the 12-year-old goes to a school, his only textbook is an ipad. he has no other textbooks. and he is able to communicate with children, for instance in china. the semester that he studied china, i went and gave one lecture but he communicated with schoolchildren in china about the common things that we have to address for the future. i think by the time we go through another four or five years, when maybe the war in afghanistan is over and we avoided a war in iran and so forth and the world sees that peace is possible, i think then there might be a turning of attention to a more opportunities for children of all nations to communicate with each other and to learn about one another. >> does that technology make it easier? i mean when we watched the arab spring. we certainly saw the pictures were able to come, to, out of tahrir square in
egypt. when we were able to be interconnected. when we were able to organize because of twitter, because of facebook because of the internet, how has technology changed, do you think the prospects for peace and for involvement by everyday sit tense to make a better world? . . of everyday citizens to make a better world >> well, the carter center is deeply involved in egypt. i will be going down in a few more days, and i do not think any one of those revolutionary -- would have been possible without the modern technology. the cell phone and that sort of thing. people in communities within libya and within tunisia and within egypt and so forth to gather together with a common purpose, and the point i made earlier about my grandchildren, not only are the children in china and japanmaybe north koree
israelis and the egyptians -- those children are going to be able to talk to each other and communicate with one another, so i think what has happened in egypt or tunisia is likely to happen in the future among children of different nations, and they have something in common, the benefit of peace and prosperity and environmental and equality, i think that will be a major contribution to them wanting to get along better with each other instead of to go to war of the drop of a hat, so i think it is going to been in peace and not war because we understand each other better pure growth harks -- we
understand each other better. >> you and i were talking about presidential candidates who were not going to be allowed to participate. i know all of you have talked about your frustrations in not seeing the war come out of and what you have accomplished. is it harder to create peace or to sustain it? >> they are different challenges.
it requires them to fully accept the need for fundamentals. it is the starting point, and this is what needs to happen. we cannot just maintain the status quo. we need to change in order to improve the environment in order to bring a better life to our key bove and -- in order to bring a better life. it demands adhering to the cornerstones of the agreements of the constitution, which was
negotiated. this was effective protection of private ownership, freedom of the press and freedom of association. all of those are under threat, because it is argued what was good 20 years ago maybe is no longer good tuesday -- today because of bad government. education has not improved. what was needed was a effective governance, good management, and when that falls away, it can significantly damage what has
been achieved. >> those their need to be a face to that change? it occurs to me there were faces to the camp david accords, iconic images and we have had. we know mikhail gorbachev was the face of change and nelson mandela is so connected with the end of apartheid. one of the criticisms of the occupied movement is they will never affect the kind of change they could not, and the coasts -- because they reject being part of the structure, so by not having a face to represent that change, it is difficult for them to do it, and i am sure there
are a lot of students in this audience who went to the occupier movements or were interested in them. do you think without a strong leader it can affect change? >> ladies and gentlemen, whenever we looked up the problem, and we have to the get- respective term. it is a different problem when you have an outsider. good let's look at it differently. each of you can drive almost anywhere all around the world. now won the advancement as also
does, it -- assaultive us, we have to a depth of things we can have that are the same kind, whereas with the different taxation system, a different social benefit systems. the disproportions' are simply too big. but is why when we have this vote, are we talking about respective states problems? we are facing the challenge of greece. they have much better social benefits and poland, and poland is supposed to be helping increasgreece. a similar thing will occur when
we come to terms with governments. we should really begin to think what should be the foundations and only then decide what we can afford three today, bearing in mind all of this is necessary when one country dominates the other. then we assisted those who were the fastest runners. and we should assist those who live behind. isever does not pay tax thoses not to our advantage. everyone is essential.
as we must find jobs for everyone. if we felt there will be revolution. the discrepancies are so great, we have of wide platform for integration. we need to level disproportions in order to enlarge freedom for all of us. these are the challenges of today, but before we were not even allowed to ask such questions. today we have realized it is no longer anyone's benefit. we can create better benefits, but the discrepancies do not allow us to implement the decision, and we have political leaders.
we cannot invent a new vision. hopefully we will find some structures that can lead us forward. good sex does there have to be a singular leader? the answer is an -- >> does there have to be a singular leader? the answer is who is the singular leader in egypt or yemen or syria. the answer is there is none, but you do not need a leader to take charge and say, let's all do this endeavor -- and to gather followers. every student or everyone who believes in freedom or peace or environmentally qualities beaks independently, but their voices combine and make a powerful weapon that can change a government and bring revolution.
in the past you have to have a singular leader. now you do not. i think that is a good signal to say, i can do something. i do not need to wait for someone to tell me what to do. good >> i would like to pick up on that, because i think there is a sense the internet and social media has had an opportunity to bring us together, and president carter, you are known as a peanut farmer. you went on to become a nuclear physicist as well as president of the united states and a nobel peace prize winner. he is one example. if you were in a school in chicago earlier today, president gorbachev was talking about where he grew up, and it was one
of the most impoverished areas, and raised by peasants. can use the globex -- can you speak to youth about the opportunities that were out there, and to say, i came from plains, ga., or from a small town in poland. what can one person june? -- do? >> i think certainly we should not speak about region we should speak about things we have achieved, and they are important. they must be continued, freedom of speech, freedom of protest.
if there is a protest, it may go too far, of but we should definitely preserve the ability of the people, the right of people to peacefully protest, and that is a great responsibility on all of us on the current generation. what i would like to say is but i think the government in many countries understands the importance of youth in every country. we have recently had an election campaign, and there are some youth organization sponsored by the government. one is called our people. what about the government? what about the rest of the young people?
they are not ours? many people do not want that kind of divisiveness, that kind of split of young people into those who are good and those who are not. i think there is a great responsibility of the municipal level and also of the national level to have the right kind of attitude towards young people, confidence and respect. i am sure young people should not the pactiv on the back, should not be controlled. good at is not a way -- that is not the way to work thwith yout.
we will not succeed if young people are just supposed to do someone sitting -- someone's bidding. i think very often that results in irresponsibility, and distortion of the democratic process. that results in the way real problems are ignored, and that may result in extremist and fascist organizations and radical nationalist organizations. we have recently discussed this problem of young people, and the
leaders of some news organizations -- youth organizations have recently taken the path of some kind of extremism. i think it is only within the democratic city that young people can look forward, debate, shows solidarity. without the democratic framework, we could get something quite dangerous and very harmful to reuter >> you bring up a good point about two sides of the corn. good one is what we saw with the arab spring, but there is also up a clear link between poverty and youth and terrorism.
no longer the greatest threat being the soviet union, but the greatest threat in the early 20th-century was considered to be al qaeda, and i am wondering with the splintering of outside the, the you think terrorism is -- of al qaeda, d do think terrorism is less of a threat, particularly in the way discontent and poverty conceived extremism? >> i think it is a real threat, and i think we should start the change in approach and ask why do young people learn in the hands of people like the late osama bin laden, who quiz their minds, who motivate them towards
terrorism? why are they vulnerable to that sort of thing? i think it relates to issues like bad education, failed education systems, issues like unemployment, and no hope for a better life, because of bad economic situations. they have nothing to lose. there is an element of truth. therefore, improving the living conditions of people here give where do the terrorists come from? they come from suppressed countries where people are surprised. and they come from countries
where the masses do not have a good living conditions, and it is stimulated by a fanaticism, so i think terrorism remains of threat. i think if we want the youth to be activated in a more constructive way, and we need to also remember to heads are better than one. i am sitting next to to people who made a tremendous difference, but they had organizational structures, and they were right to say, choose your cross, and a line with an organization.
people believing in the same thing can do better if they develop new and action plan rather than each of them developing narrowness action plan and promoting it on their own -- developing their own action plan and promoting it on their own. and this becomes part of modern technology, which can exercise tremendous influence. i do not think we should glorify process for the sake of process. [applause] >> i could see you wanted to get in on this conversation. >> we should start with a proper diagnosis and a treatment. there was a legacy handed down to us.
we used to have people trained to fight against one another and arm them, and when they collapse and we loved those people without any money, and they began creating their own private wars, and we continue to have problems. people continue to adopt the same methods of struggle, though their motivation is different year ago -- is different. we need to globally identified terrorists, and we will have a proper education, a proper institution, so i think with the
diagnosis, they are appropriate. the treatment can be appropriate, too, but your question regarding young people and leadership, i know when we were young, and one needed to be more than the other. courage is not as needed anymore. we need to better organize ourselves to face the challenges and we have to meet. then i had two strong arguments , one was my belief in god, and i see how far i have gotten, but if i was to become the leader today, i would need to adopt a
slightly different approach. if i want to be a union leader, i would say in 20 or 30 years from now we would need to solve the conflicts and problems in an equal sided triangle. all the conflict should be solved once we sit down to debate in a three-sided triangle. the other side is business owners, and the other side is the level of the administration, depending on what level our original organization is. we should meet in a triangle of like this with the first question being what to make of 20 computers. we will never reach an agreement if it were not on a computer, so
once we decide, we have a second question asked, about the respective demands. we follow with a third questions. how many variations do you 1 2/5 want? only the fourth question is out -- when should we meet again, and this is calculated, and the young people have answered within 20 or 30 years you will help us solve conflicts and
antagonism, and leaving a motion for our lives, and the same should be for political leaders. they should recall every single move of the politician, because i do not want a control of the politicians. i want this shift of records everything in the computer. this is something you have to introduce, because otherwise, the world will not be transparent. i believe this is something we can reach. that is why i do encourage young people, and then we will test things.
>> i have a handful of questions , and iom the audience pinhol think they are fantastic. sam but it is out -- sam is out there. he wrote which very nice handwriting, do you believes faith and religion have any place in humanitarian efforts? if so, are they a help or a hindrance? >> i believe they have a positive place to exert themselves in the future.
it creates fundamentalism, and fundamentalist in any religion, and then the disagreement can deteriorated into feeling the other person is inferior, and that can go further, and saying that person's life is not significant and i can go to taking advantage of that person because they are inferior when in my opinion and in the eyes of god, and i think when we look at
>> i think every country whoat >> live now to discussion of in a report showing that technology including broadband access is narrowing the gap between black and white americans. this itself by the national urban league here in washington. it is just getting started. >> we are very excited to be joined by several of the eyed peas the second of made time in their busy schedules to do with us. and for the first half of our program, we will hear brief remarks from our distinguished guests, beginning with in cpa ceo and president and former fcc chairman, michael powell. he will be followed by financial urban league president and ceo, marc morial, followed by fcc chairman chiles schakowsky, fcc commissioner mignon clyburn, and fcc commissioner robert mcdowell.
that will lead the remainder of our program, about 45 minutes, for us to delve more deeply into a moderated discussion about how strategies are connecting broadband in urban community, can be accomplished. will have a panel of esteemed individuals who will be introduced a little better. so without any further ado, it's my pleasure to introduce and turn the microphone over to ncpa president and ceo, and former fcc chairman michael powell to offer some welcoming remarks. >> well, good afternoon. patchwork of my name is michael albert on the president and ceo of the national cable and telecommunications association, and it's a great honor and a pleasure to welcome all of you to our home here at the ncta
headquarters. it promises to be an exciting and productive afternoon. in the cable industry, we really get the privilege frequently of working with a lot of terrific partners on trade policy provisions and on worthy initiatives, but none are more fascinating and fantastic to work with than time warner cable and the national urban league. time warner cable is not only an extraordinary number of our association, a leading innovator in the cable industry, but a company that has chemistry by its actions a strong sense of corporate social responsibility and committing to make the lives of ordinary citizens better. and what can you say about the national urban league? they seem to be involved in all things worthy all the time. chaired ably by marc morial, my good friend who was with us here today as well. so we're going to talk this afternoon about a really fantastic research effort that
attempts to draw the connection between broadband adoption and job creation for the african-american community. but what really occurs to me is the connection has more significance than even that. it really draws the connection between adoption and the american dream. anyone hoping for a life filled with honorable work, personal and family prosperity, education for their children, a better life for their children know that that road passes through the digital age. and absent the tools and illiteracy required, the promises will never be fulfilled over fully realized. this is a subject of great person -- personal passion to me, because in many ways this will be the first time of the three great economic ethics in which african-americans may truly and genuinely have a
chance. like many of you during the agricultural age, my ancestors were enslaved and picking cotton for other people. during the industrial age, we were segregated by jim crow laws, rules of separation that never really allowed that community to enjoy fully the promises of that dream. and as we enter the dawn of the information age, that prospect looks bright and potentially very powerful for our community, if only we can seize it and do what we need to do to make it real. i can tell you one thing, the cable industry is sincerely committed to that fight. not only are we proud to be the industry that introduced broadband to the american public, we have invested over $185 million over the last decade to reach 92% of american households. but we also woke up in recognize, not good enough.
we need to try to get more american citizens adopting the service, using these tools in order to bring about the promises that we talk about. and so we are embarking along with partnership with the fcc and to connect to compete initiative, a dedicated effort for the cable industry to try to drive adoption of low-cost offering two kids through school lunch programs across the country. so in short, as an industry we are all in and intend to stay there. we will have the pleasure of hearing from leadership of the federal communications commission, and as a part of privilege, as a former colleague i will take it is a real testament to the significance of this effort and its import that the entire commission would be here today. not only under the great leadership of my friend, the chairman, julius genachowski, he was always given for us to this issue, he is joined by outstanding colleagues in many
and clyburn and rob mcdowell, demonstrate unequivocally that this is an issue that crosses all party divide and his significance cannot afford the usual difficulties of commission process, and i'm thrilled to have them here with us here today. [applause] >> so i think will have a fruitful discussion on this report. i'm very much looking forward to hearing the funnies, and i won't preclude them. and with that, i have the privilege to introduce a great leader, a better friend and a real committed advocate for great causes, the president and ceo of the national urban league, marc morial. [applause] >> thank you very much. ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> let me thank chairman powell for his kind remarks and for
really laying out why this is important. let me also thank chairman genachowski and members of the commission. let's give him another round of applause. thank you very much. [applause] for being with us today. i just apologize for arriving late, but i just completed another conference call on s.t.e.m. education, which is dominating so much of the discussion and education, and workforce circles, and that is a good thing. i'm also late because i got a new piece of equipment that i do not know how to silence or turn off. [laughter] so i apologize if it rings. we are proud today, the national urban league, through our policy in research or the national urban league policy institute, headed by chanelle hardy, to join with time warner cable in
releasing this very important report, connecting the dots. and this report in some way, like so many reports, reaffirms what we already know. but gives us insight into information that we may not be so aware of out. but thirdly and importantly, we hope that this report sets a path, outlines the steps, point a direction, that we need to go. in our infancy, the national urban league and its affiliates had as our task to assist african-americans in the transition from rural america to urban america. from an agrarian society to and industrial society. in our work in the early
1900s, was predicated on that, helping people connect to jobs and opportunities in the burgeoning automobile, glass, plastics and steel plants, of many of our northern industrial cities. today, we are now exactly two years into our second century. 102 years old. and our work, we believe, is to help people transition from an industrial economy to an information and knowledge based economy. from an urban economy to what might this be characterized as a global economy, so our work is the same but the steps we take in the 21st century are indeed different. this important report contained
some good news. but it also contains some not so good news. so what is the good news? the good news is that the gap between african-americans and whites, when it comes to broadband adoption, is narrowing. narrowing i think significantly. and we are on, i think, a very important role. and we need to celebrate that as good news. it is okay to clap. [applause] >> but within that, what we find is that for those that make less than $20,000 a year, the locked out and the left out, those with less than high school attainme attainment, broadband remains elusive, in some cases unaffordable, and the gap
remains unacceptably high. we must commit, we must commit as a nation, as regulators, as private industry, as public officials, as civil rights leaders, to close that gap because broadband, access to technology, is an essentiality of american life in the 21st century. and essentiality. it is no longer a nicety. it is now a necessity, and we must reaffirm that it is indeed a necessity of life, a necessity of progress, a necessity of quality of life. so while we celebrate the good news, and we point out is not so good news, there are a number of other important observations
that focus on this idea that broadband is about jobs, and it's about economic empowerment. and that is that african-americans lag behind when it comes to our participation in technology come in information-based industry jobs. we underperform, vis-à-vis our percentage of the workforce, and our percentage of the populations. secondarily, when it comes to the very important issues of entrepreneurship and business development, a central objective of the work we do at the urban league, african-american participation in the sector is paltry and statistically very small. these are things that we must work on. and we must work on them not
simply because fairness dictates it, a sense of equity dictates it, but global competitiveness for the american economy dictates. because of the changing workforce in this nation. so we suggest a number of things. in the workforce area, the nation's broad and print doctrine, and again community commission for develop and national broadband plan, a blueprint, a roadmap, a set of affirmations and principles, and nations workforce investment act, which is nation's blueprint about job training and workforce development is outdated, outmoded, stale, and a relic of the 20th century. we need to revive that workforce act in a way that encourages
investments in the kind of skill that the broadband economy of the 21st century requires. the kind of skill that the manufacturing renaissance that is beginning to take place in this nation requires. the kind of skill that all of the new industries in the information-technology sector require. we need to be right the workforce investment act. we need to we focus our work and our investment in workforce in to assisting people in the acquisition of the kinds of skills that they need to work for the businesses of today and tomorrow. we don't want to train people, give them an opportunity to acquire skills and neely's certificates that that are not marketable in the 21st century. economy.
we have very important work to do. we have got to revive our thinking when it comes to job training the let me say this. while everyone is mindful, mindful of the fiscal constraints that this nation operates under, no nation has ever gone wrong by investing too much money in its own people. not the romans, not the greeks, not the ethiopians, no ancient great society ever went wrong. we must reaffirm that by investing in the skills enhancement of people. there's a return, not only for the businesses that they work for, not only for the individuals, but for the nation at large, and for the economy of the 21st century. when it comes to business, it is important that as a nation we try to grow the participation
rates of african-american and other businesses owned by communities of color in the information technology sector. how can it be done, to focus on where we have growth? this is a place where the business leadership of this nation can play a crucial role. african-american business in the last 10 years have had the greatest success in the business-to-business sales market. less in the business to consumer market, but in the business-to-business sales market, or in the business to government market. and slide and improved increasing strong commitment to supplier diversity is so essential. my colleagues at the national urban league, madura -- were is madura? please stand. michelle hardy, please stand. and doctor valerie wilson.
they did all of this work to put this work together -- to put this report together. [applause] >> i want to thank them because i get an opportunity to join him to credit. [laughter] so we are excited about this report. we want to thank time warner cable for having confidence and research capability of the national urban league and the national urban league's policy to compile this report. we ask you to take a look at this is port, and to report both the good and the challenges, and the steps that we can take to improve things in this nation. i also am proud that we have any urban league movement 97 affiliates around the country, those 97 affiliates, ladies and gym, serve over 2 million people a year in workforce training, in
afterschool programs, in housing programs. in a few minutes you'll have an opportunity to hear from my colleague, allie braswell, stand up, alec and who's the president and ceo of the central florida urban league in orlando, and the greater orlando area. so again, thank you so much. it was my deep, extreme pleasure to present to each of you the chairperson of the federal communications commission. i want to thank him for his leadership, thank him for his commitment, and let you know, mr. chairman and the other commissioners, on these issues, we are the wind beneath your wings. so we want you to soar high. but you will never go too high. we will be right there with you, and the members of the commission. so ladies and gentlemen, please create the chairman, julius genachowski. [applause]
>> thank you, marc morial. thank you so much for those great remarks, for that introduction, and for this report that you've just described that is being released today that shines a light on this incredibly important issue, both the good news and the not so good news, the opportunities and the challenges. i've had a chance to preview the report, and i can tell you that it will make a real difference in our work, and in our collective goal to close adoption gaps, unleash opportunity for all americans. privilege to be hit with both of my colleagues on the commission, and you are right, i think michael said this, and their art
that many events that we all come to together. and it says a lot about -- [applause] it says a lot about the importance of this issue to both commissioner goodell and commissioner clyburn here. we do need to all work together on the gaps that both of my predecessors because i spoke about, that we talk to and the broadband plan, the broadband adoption gap, and this is just a great sign that we can continue to make progress together on these very important issues. it's great that we're doing this announcement here at ncta with michael powell here, with time warner cable here. the cable industry has made a decision to commit to helping
solve the broadband adoption gap, to unleash opportunity through broadband for all americans, to throw itself into, as michael said, the connect and compete initiative, and i want all of you to know that in committing to connect to compete, ncta and the cable industry are taking a stand for consumers and taking a stand for our economy. now, what is connect to compete? you've heard us talk about. connect to compete is an unprecedented coalition of private companies, nonprofit groups, working with the government to tackle the challenges underneath the broadband adoption gap. there isn't a single civil reason for and so there isn't a simple solution to it. our work supported, confirmed by the work at the national urban
league has done today, indicated that there are three main barriers to broadband adoption. people think cost is one, digital literacys another, and relevance is a third. people undervaluing the benefits of broadband. we are working together to tackle each of these challenges. the cost, one of the most important parts of the connect to compete and initiative is a commitment by the cable industry to roll out $9.95 a month broadband to all families in their areas with kids on school lunch programs. very big idea, highly complex, not easy, not something that you can just say yes to. it requires real commitment, real investment as a part of all the companies in the cable industry, and we should all be grateful to the work that they are doing. [applause]
on digital literacy, which is also part of the connect to compete initiative, libraries across the country, one with companies like best buy, geek squad and others, will be teaching basic digital skills, working with the organizations like national urban league and others. at the fcc we propose using savings on universal service reform to increase digital literacy training in schools and libraries. and, of course, we're working on other measures to tackle the broadband adoption and other broadband gaps. today's report, it does cover many different strands of the broadband adoption issues, but in some ways i see it as focusing on the third barrier to adoption that he mentioned before, the irrelevance gap, the undervaluing of broadband, to too many, and the report reminds
us that at the end of the day, connect to compete is not just a broadband adoption initiative. and it's not just an education initiative, and it's not just the health care initiative. or a public safety initiative because broadband is all those things. but what the port reminds is connect to compete is a jobs initiative. and you see that when you look at the report today. according to the report, 77% of african-americans have used broadband to search for jobs. and programs like central florida urban league's job training program, which will hear about shortly, are helping participants in very high numbers find jobs through digital skills training. and why is this important? without digital access and digital literacy, finding and landed a job is virtually
impossible in this country. almost all jobs postings have now moved online. that's certainly true for fortune 500 companies. and almost all job postings require online application. so if you don't have online access and online skills, you are way behind the curve in having a chance to participate in our economy, have a chance to be eligible for the jobs that are out there, that are being created. digital literacy is increasingly essential in the job market, more than half of today's jobs requires some technology skills. the percentage is projected to grow over 75% in the next decade. if we don't tackle the digital literacy problem now, we run the risk that michael mentioned in his remarks, of this age of economic opportunity following a similar depressing path of the
prior one. but we know it now, and it's a testament to the importance of this and a wide recognition of this that such a diverse multi-stakeholder group has come together to say we are committed to solving. as mr. mario said, the report has good news and some not good news. we are seeing progress in the percentage of african-americans coming online, getting broadband at home, but we are seeing strong ongoing, lingering problems among the lowest income in that committee, and other communities. and overall, we still have too many americans who are not part of the broadband landscape. still about a third of americans don't have broadband at home. having this many people not part of the broadband economy, on the wrong side of the digital divide, not good. it's not good for those people.
if not good for our country to compete in the global economy. in the 21st century, having one-third of americans sitting on the sidelines should be as unthinkable as having one-third of our country without electricity in the 20th century. millions being left out of jobs, left out of official learning, it's not just an economic issue. it's a civil rights issue. we need to close the broadband adoption gap and make sure every american can enjoy the benefits of high speed internet. it's what the report is about. it's what our work together with national urban league, other community organizations and ncta, cable industry is about, the core mission of ours at the federal can occasion commission. that's why we focus together, the fcc come on broadband development the first national broadband plan, modernizing and reforming major universal service programs, focusing on updating the fund for rural america, for low income people,
for schools and libraries. it's why we are focused on unleashing spectrum for both licensed and unlicensed global broadband use but it's why we're focused on removing areas to broadband buildout to unleash investment as quickly as possible in wired and wireless infrastructure, all over the country so that broadband is both ubiquitously available and ultimately accessed by every american. i want to thank again a national urban league, marc morial for the work you've done, your team. i know you been working on this for sometime but i remember the time you said we're working on this report. you said you posted if it's a good report, you'll come and help me launch it. and i suggest. and we looked at the work that you have done, and i'm just so proud of it. it's making a real contribution to this important national challenge, and michael, my friend, thank you so much for what you personally are doing, what the cable industry is
doing. .. absolutely someone who at almost every single meeting i have with her raises issues around those people in our community who are going to be left behind if we don't do something about it and what i admire of commissioner clyburn is the consistency of her commitment to these issues and also the breadth of her
willingness to tackle hard issues and to find solutions wherever they are to make progress. it's a privilege to introduce now, commissioner clyburn. [applause] >> thank you so much mr. chairman for being so kind. there is a lot that he left out during our exchanges but he still comes back for more, so i appreciate that. good afternoon everyone. president morial and president powell, thank you for this invitation and for your willingness to host such a significant event. since 1910, the urban league has worked tirelessly to improve the traditions of african-americans and today, it continues to empower deserving individuals through job skills training, education, entrepreneurship training and broadband adoption. in some ways, as was implied,
this is similar to what we are charged to do at the fcc. rule 257, you knew i was going to bring up something right? of the communication act directs us to identify and eliminate through regulatory actions, market entry barriers for under printers and other small businesses and the provision of ownership of telecommunications and information services. under the chairman's leadership we have acknowledge and are increasingly aware of the fact that many things we were still a accomplishing at the fcc can be expedited through coordination with private industry. nowhere is this more true than with broadband adoption. getting americans connected at home and in their communities is in everyone's best interest. for young children and provides a window into their future and computer and internet literacy are essential fields that they can't learn early enough. for older students, it opens up
an entire universe of research and learning resources located outside of their local schools and libraries. for jobseekers, it allows them to search and apply for job openings, upward of 80% of the fortune 500 companies and smaller companies as well, and for seniors, it offers a wealth of new hobbies, adventures and an immediate link to their children, grandchildren and friends. we are a great and rich nation that currently there are millions of americans without access to basic broadband services. i have heard stories of individuals traveling miles by bus just to logon and scour the web for employment. i've been told of the student hiding overnight in a public library in order to finish his homework, and i have seen first-hand as i know you have, some lines that form at those
computer terminals inside of our public libraries. collectively, we recognize that we must connect the dots and this is why i am enthusiastic about the partnership of the national urban league. we are already seeing the results of aggressive engagement for the narrowing of the broadband gap for african-americans. student gains for stem initiative in chattanooga and training successes in central florida that we will hear more about. i'm also encouraged by the positive reviews of connect and compete through which chairman genachowski sees the power of relationships with community organizations and the people they serve. these on the ground and in the neighborhood entities can preach the benefit of connectivity in ways that corporations and government cannot, and they have become vital partners in our effort to get lower income families and seniors on line. the urban league on workforce
training, education modernization and forward-looking ideas regarding economically distressed businesses are prudent and well conceived, and i commend mr. morial once again and his incredible attention and energy in this initiative. further i want to also recognize time warner cable's research program and digital communication that supported this research and research in broadband. i have been and will continue to be a willing partner to the urban league and broadband adoption and i can thank you for your invitation to be here this afternoon. at this point, i would like to reveal the rest of my time to the distinguished gentleman from virginia, commissioner robert mcdowell.
[applause] >> i am glad you didn't say ex-english gentleman. [laughter] good afternoon. how is everybody? well, good. many thanks to ncta and it's always difficult following the eloquence of michael powell. what a great speaker and what a great leader he is to this organization. many thanks to the national urban league as well and lots to talk by regarding your study and i look forward to sinking my teeth into it and studying it very hard and learning as much as i can. and also time warner cable, thank you for all your support of this effort and other efforts as well. as many of you know last fall the ftc completed -- the fcc completed a monumental task by reforming the high cost portion of our universal service program and earlier this year in january we worked on a reform of our lifeline linkup program. but we repurpose the high cost
program to support broadband while adhering to the budget for a the very first time. not only with our effort historic, but it was bipartisan and unanimous as well, and that is something you don't hear much about in washington d.c.. mr. chairman and my distinguished colleagues from north carolina deserve a lot of credit for that. [applause] now our reform will help ensure the support in deploying high-speed internet technology to those americans who are currently underserved by any broadband service. although our overhaul was a major con fishman, the fcc has much more to do to implement reform and rescuing the funds of failing contribution methodologs going to pay for the subsidies and how. and just a little while ago we watched him address that. with a minor look forward to continuing our work on these
issues of the fcc and hopefully with two new commissioners as soon as possible. ahec re-with our host today that in addition to expanding broadband deployment another key component to ensuring academic and career success for americans is improving the broadband adoption rate in our country. increased broadband adoption will help grow america's economy as well. and today, we do have before us some good news and we will talk about the less good news as well but all too often focus only focus on the bad news, especially in washington d.c.. so i do think there is a time to celebrate some goodness especially with the urban league finding study today that the adoption gap has shrunk substantially between 2009 in 2010. and of course, more needs to be done and more will be done. simply put, let us all work together to ensure that day when there is no gap comes sooner rather than later.
one way to close that gap is to examine, respect and encourage already existing market trends. american consumers are choosing to cut the cord as they purchase wireless services over fixed wireline. already more than 30% of america's households are wireless only for their phone service. let's connect that powerful dots with another fact. minorities are more likely to use mobile devices then -- according to a pew research study. furthermore minorities are more like be the to use their mobile devices for internet access and when we take a step back from these details, we can see an encouraging trend more clearly. that is that the internet is going mobile and american minorities are leading the way. i think this is actually very
encouraging. as the government adopts policies in this area and is the private it sector invests, all of it should work together to determine how we can strengthen these natural market trends. we should avoid adopting policies that may have the best of intentions but ultimately backfire or undermined this very goals basic to achieve. allowing consumers to make informed choices in a competitive marketplace best serves the public interest. this is especially true when we examine even more good news. when it comes to the ability to access the world's most valuable commodity, information, american consumers have never been more empowered. market leaps in computing power and decreases in cost have spurred the most advancement. for example, in 1965, m.i.t. had its own computer and that was actually a big deal for
university to have its own computer back in 1965. it cost $11 million in today's dollars. and it was assigned to the house. today, the microprocessor in your mobile device, whatever you have right now and i don't know what everyone has in this room, is at least more than 1 million times smaller, 1 million times less expensive and more than a thousand times more powerful. that equates to more than a billion fold increase in the amount of computing power you have in your hands per dollar. so who in here can remember the first -- some of you are not raising your hands. [laughter] so if we have put all this another way, who could have imagined that at the time of the first summer of 69 when america was still in fresh morning over
the loss of dr. martin luther king just a year earlier, that all americans, including african-americans, could have far more computing power in their hands than the entire apollo program for just a few dollars a month. all within less than a month. within the next 25 years, experts estimate we will enjoy yet another million fold increase in the processing power for the same dollar. exponential increases in capacity and decreases in cost have resulted in more information being shared with more people and that helps all americans including people of color. cisco estimates that by 2014, fewer than 24 months from now, the internet will be nearly four times larger than it is now. it would take more than five years for one person to watch the montevideo that will global ip networks every second in 2015
and i hope one person doesn't have to do that. put another way, the during each second in the year 2015, 1 million minutes of video content will travel through the internet. these developments are all the more astounding when you consider that the first use of the strange word internet in "the washington post" was on september 26, 1988. who can remember that date? and that was in the far back of the financial section and add. keep in mind that for every job the internet disrupts, it creates 2.6 new jobs. how far we have come and how fast, all due to nationally evolving market trends. if we encourage these trends rather than create obstacles that may impede them i'm optimistic we will continue to enjoy the fruits of the greatest explosion of brilliance in human
history. investment, innovation and competition will continue to grow the economy, create jobs and improve the human condition, unlike any other time in our history. if we allow it. thank you for inviting me to this terrific event today. thank you for unveiling this terrific research. it is very inspiring. your thoughtful and stellarly work will provide many of the private and public sectors with salient -- that will yield great benefits probably in the years to come. your contribution is an important component to a multifaceted effort to ensure that america continues to lead the world and the 21st century. so thank you very much for having me. [applause] it is now my job to introduce -- without further ado fernando laguarda device resident for federal affairs and policy.
time warner cable and he manages this wonderful research program so thank you so much for doing this. [applause] >> thank you commissioner mcdowell and thank you to all of the distinguished speakers and for being here today. welcome to the second part of our program. my job is to introduce our next speaker and also to tell you a little bit about the research program. when we launched the time warner cable research program on digital communications in february of 2010, our goal was to foster research dedicated to increasing understanding of the benefits and challenges facing the future of digital technology. individual research facilities and universities, not for profits such as the urban league, are eligible to apply for the stipends and just so you know the deadline for the next
round of stipends is november 1, 2012. we have two goals. first, we are excited about the future of this incredible technology, the future of broadband in particular but of digital communications in general and we want to find ways to give value to our customers. but that doesn't mean we have all the answers to all the questions people have about the challenges and the policy challenges that we face. so the program is a way to get the best minds thinking about those challenges and offering concrete solutions. and that is related to the second reason for launching the program. we hope to encourage scholars to take up these questions and bring wisdom and perspective from new voices into the debate, and we can expand a range of contributors to scholarship in fields that relate to our industry who are taking a step in the right direction.
and i think today's event shows that we were me can progress. so it is my pleasure now to introduce the director of policy at the national urban league policy institute, one of the authors of the she will give an overview of the report. thank you. [applause] >> thank you fernando and first of all a very big thank you to president howell and to mr. morial and chairman genachowski and commissioner clyburn and commissioner mcdowell for taking the time away from their very busy schedules to come down here and support us. and also a special thank you to fernando and the whole team at time warner cable, harvey and gail mckenna and for supporting us for a long time, for almost 12 months now and supporting other research in these areas.
and then as very special thank you to neal from mta who will be such a great friend in this venue. so i will be very quick. the focus is going to be the panel but the basic storyline is that there are two major achievements in broadband adoption that we must celebrate. there are two major policy broadband adoptions that we must address in their strategy is to leverage or to utilize the achievements to design solutions that efficiently and effectively answer the problem. mr. morial just mentioned them earlier. there is undoubtedly a narrowing of the broadband adoption gap between african-americans and white americans. in 2009, the gap was 19 percentage points and in 2010, it was 11 percentage points. in all the data we stand on the shoulders of the pew research and the political economic
studies, and we did our own analysis. and so over difficult economic times we -- the gap has narrowed. the other achievement is that perhaps it is known, in the african-american communities there is an extraordinary drive for private enterprise, enterprise, innovation and for business creation. here is some data. african-americans much higher uses of the internet than anyone else for business opportunities on line. between 2007 -- between 2002 and 2007, 2007 the most recent data african-american businesses have the highest growth rate, 60% growth rate compared to 18% for the national rate. and then we did our own research. the high-tech business have the best survival rate. as we know small businesses
tend -- most don't tend to last long but high-tech businesses did. in fact they have the best survival rates between 2004 and 2008. so those are the achievements, great narrowing of the gap and extraordinary interest and private enterprise. so what are the problems? there are two major problems. the first one is as was mentioned earlier, there is a continuing gap in broadband adoption. most of high school dropouts and to a lesser extent for households, african-american households who make less than $20,000 year. in those communities about 35% adopt the internet. and the second one has the most striking and perhaps less known, is the engagement and a great interest and private enterprise among african-americans and yet the attraction is not so great. in 2007 there was a population
of 12% and information center in 2007 there was 6%. but those businesses only generated .23% of revenue. 12% of the population generated .23 so i think the data is very clear. what is our strategy? before we move to that we thought we first must appreciate that this is not easy. we have have to be efficient, cost-effective and the economy is not some kind of equation where you can put things in and and then everything comes out again. it's a lot more complicated in that. we thought some guidelines would help. the first guideline is one-size-fits-all does not work. solutions must fit the needs of of the market and technology. number two can't come we have to promote business-to-business enterprise.
business-to-business activities. that means the emphasis needs to be on production overconsumption and number three, we have to be cognizant and we have to address the underlying structural inequalities meaning just because you have new technology doesn't necessarily mean there is a firewall from the past. taking those three things together, we have three basic ideas or solutions. one of them is job training must be closely related to what the industry needs. that means must have a job placement components like the old apprenticeship model, reengineering that it must deal with -- there are people who are not community college-ready. also provide the skills. number two private enterprise must grow in the african-american community and their the leverage is of great interest in business and a great interest in broadband to drive
that engagement. and then the solutions providing fast-track approvals for businesses and some of these areas and access to revenue and capital. and finally the issue is the pipeline education. the pipeline needs to be more efficient and effective. here are data will show that the problem is not so much going to college or stem but rather completion. the data shows that equal numbers of african-americans and other groups enter college with the completion rates -- the solution is that you reach the kids in middle school or even earlier and then provide the fundamental skills that will enable them to not have to go into remedial classes. those are the three solutions. so there is just a little glimpse of the solutions that are proposed and now i invite chanelle hardy who is my co-author and also the senior
vice president of the national urban league policy institute, to introduce three great people of action who are on the cutting-edge in implementing some of our solutions but also some other solutions where they can discuss how some of these ideas might be implemented, might the executed to create jobs and prosperity. thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. we are so excited to have all of you here today. 2012 actually marks the 50th anniversary of the national urban league's policy institute formerly known as the washington bureau of the national urban league and for those 50 years we have been serving as a research policy and advocacy arm of the large and strong national urban league movement. the national urban league policy institute and the movement together are to take.
we bring together our research with our learning from the field to develop practical solutions that can be immediately applied to address our national challenges and opportunities in the areas of jobs, education, housing and health. because our mission remains timely and urgent, economic empowerment for african-americans is critical and we are going to meet the needs of the 2.5 million served and address the lingering 50% unemployment rate in order to help those people to reach the promise of the american dream. is also larger than african-american communities. for americans to be globally competitive and to thrive in a changing world and to create an environment where innovators, the future innovators the matter where they are located, are able to contribute the products and services that will continue to provide solutions for the future. this conversation remains relevant so we are pleased with
this report offers solutions to consider and we hope it contributes to a broader and ongoing conversation about how all of us can work together to realize the promise of broadband technology. so i'm going to add my thank you's for our distinguished speakers today, for the support of time warner cable's research program in all of you who took the time to come. i'm going to ask to join me now are three distinguished panelists. we have fernando laguarda, the vice president of policy counsel for time warner cable. we have josh gottheimer the senior fcc chairman and we have allie braswell who is ceo of the "orlando sentinel" florida urban league. if you will join me, we will get ready to start. [applause] we are going to use the rest of his time to dig into the report a little bit, with some questions that i will ask the panel and then we will open it
up to the audience. if a few of you want to think of questions you might have, we will have time to address that toward the end of the afternoon. so, as commissioner mcdowell mentioned, ties it to hear some good news in the midst of our steady stream of recognizing of the problems that we face by the beltway. so i want to start with ali to talk to us about things we are seeing in the ground on florida. so ali, you have been serving unemployed individuals at the center for workforce innovation, with job working, job training and job placement. can you tell us about how the program is working? >> thank you for having us here and to all of you good afternoon. the center for workforce innovation came about in february to march of 2010.
president obama said we need to prepare for new economies, green new types of jobs, and from that, we were listening and hearing of different types of things that were going on and we needed to create a new strategy in workforce development. far too many times are community-based programs were teaching how to address for success but we were leaving the soft skills off the table. we needed to adjust the attitude that when he went into work you are prepared to go in and engage in employer and obtained a job and then retain the job. when we looked at it we want to bring about a holistic approach that would reverse engineer people into opportunities of jobs that existed. we surveyed our community and we found out that one of the local media outlets said there were thousands of jobs. we validated that, that were available but the challenge was if you place the job and career builder would you be the individual that would make the
26 key words in service to the top by the selection? we found there was a vast amount of talent within the central florida area that would not necessarily rise to the top but they were incredibly talented people. second we saw a demographic were richard ashley served with the underemployed and unemployed, but they that they didn't have the access through the local opportunities to on-ramp themselves and to jobs or were available especially around technology jobs. when you take that and bring it together we looked at how can we create a private public collaborative that comes together to provide subject matter expertise training that allows these people to gain that foot in the door and have experts deliver that so when they are judging and watching these people, and placing them into the apprenticeship model to allows 90 days to a culture to assimilate to the culture to begin to gain additional technology training and move forward. that really was the birth of the center for workforce innovation which is it private public collaborative of apprenticeship to work that allows people to be
able to leverage an opportunity through the urban league. why the urban league? as you have heard stated there in are 97 affiliates and we trust in the communities that we serve. why the private public collaborative? we wanted to bring subject matter experts to the people. far too many times a demographic we traditionally serve are not on their way to community college. they're not on their way to for your college so we needed to come up with innovative ideas to help them get there. when you look at what we have been able to do through our launch in june of 2010 around culinary and where we are going with broadband and utility types of offerings, you are looking at the opportunity to number one look at utility industries and workforce. it's time also to be bringing in people of color and others into that industry. two, when you take a look at the culinary -- i am in orlando. anybody been there? one of the jobs that are
constantly available to hospitality culinary tech jobs, we have over 15,000 opportunities that turnover probably at a rate of anywhere from 60 to 70% in certain industries. so we came up with programs that were true. the first program and i will units for my colleagues here. .. >> they're not ready to go out and take a job or take ridicule
or be told what to do. we had to prepare their mindset. we graduated that class 100% graduate,72% placement, and be over 54% retention. we're looking at our broadband offering. i went around the country, and i listened to my colleagues who were doing broadband training in the carolinas, in atlanta, and we found programs that we can take and tie together. one of the great things about it is we have directv -- oh, that's the cable industry. [laughter] we have, we have time warner in areas that i have lived in, and i applaud time warner -- >> [inaudible] [laughter] >> -- for taking the time to make an investment into this incredible research. you know, i'm already geared right now, i'll be meeting with bright house networks in the central florida area to begin to talk about how do we tie this together around our broadband piece. because here's the key to success for us, we're not a certificate build. we're not generating classes
that you give a certificate, and you go out and market yourself. our guarantee is there's a job opportunity if you complete the course. now, we have some strict guidelines around attitude, aptitude and attendance for you to complete that course, but when you work out because the partner is at the table, they've already been taking a look at our talent that we're bringing through the process so that when they come out, they actually go to work. our challenge has been getting industry to believe that it's true. i've had a chance to work with madura and the team here and, trust me, they prove positively that i'm telling the truth. you know what? i'll just tell a compelling story, and i'll close. when a young lady looks you in the eye and says, you know, if you hadn't given me this opportunity, i would not be able to go to work doing something i really enjoy. or you see a young woman of 54 saying i had to retool myself so i could go to work, and i don't mind driving 40 miles to go to that job, you know, that's what the end result is.
and i think through the broadband technology opportunities, because i'm one of those rare breeds, one of those high-touch, high-tech guys, my degree came through intercontinental university online. through distance learning through the outreach of what broadband technology will bring to this community. it allows people who are working anywhere from eight to ten hours a day to plug in, gain additional knowledge to move ahead. and i'm proof positive also from a veterans' community that we can reengineer ourselves, we can retool through collaborative efforts that make a difference by allowing us the opportunity to reverse engineer in the positions that exist and then continue to move forward. thank you. [applause] >> thank you, allie. and i know that madura kind of set expectations for us by saying that these solutions are not easy and that they're complicated, but sometimes they are as simple as saying if we actually find jobs for people and then train them to take those jobs, we'll start to see some improvement and economic empowerment. so i'm going to go to josh now.
josh, in our 2012 national urban league 12-point plan on jobs, we talked about the importance of public/private initiatives, so we were extremely excited to see the launch of the connect to compete program and see the way the fcc is leveraging its ability to convene partners to the table to try to solve some of our broadband adoption challenges. and i'd like to just get some of your thoughts on where that project is and where it's going and what you see as some of the opportunities ahead. >> thanks for the question, and again, thanks for having us here today. and be, first of all, the national urban league has been a beacon in this area for many years. madura has been a good friend to the commission, also, and the research and the work that's done in this report, i think, will continue to make a huge difference in the space, and chairman powell, thank you for having us. you know, i would -- and james, i don't know if he's here, somewhere, who has been helping
drive connect to compete along with the industry and bringing together what i think is clearly a one of a kind opportunity to help the hundred million americans, a third of the country, who have not adopted broadband start adopting. and we know firsthand as you just pointed out, this is not, you don't adopt broadband for the sake of just having a pipe into your house with connectivity. it's what's over the pipe and what you can do with that connectivity and the, the change that can happen whether it's as you pointed out, education, getting the job skills you need to look for a job, to find a job. now, we know that to get it, to apply for a job in nearly every space from entry level all the way up you have to apply online. the chairman talked about this, chairman genachowski talked about this before. but the fact at target and walmart now, you have to apply online or at a digital kiosk.
it's telling that if you're not connected, you're on the other side of the broadband divide. a report put out today by the urban league shows this as well, african-americans at an increasing rate are applying and looking for jobs online. what that tells us is that if you're not connected, you're left out of this economy. we can't afford to have americans left out of the economy. so the, on the public/private side, what happened here is a case of good government, but also good citizenship at work. you had people from the cable industry and partners like best buy and careerbuilder and microsoft and discovery and across the board there are many, many partners who said we know those three obstacles of why people aren't going online. the cost, the relevance as the chairman talked about, why i need it, why it's so important, and digital literacy. and i'll tell you chairman powell had a vision here of what
we need to do, and so did james, and so did the industry. and the cable industry came together and said, listen, this is, you know, this is our business, so let's figure out how to do this in a practical way where we can help school lunch-eligible families and help students because we know if we can help children, they can get online for education, their parents could get online to help get those job skills and to find a job, and they can teach their grandparents because we know kids teach their grandparents. and they also can communicate with their grandparents. so if we can get into those homes and start there and help lift people up and get them connected, the world's our oyster. and what you will do is suddenly -- we know that if a child has connectivity at home, they have 6-8% higher graduation rates. there alone is the reason to do it, right? we know that 80% of teachers now give internet-based homework. so if you are one of the 50% of low income or minorities who's
not connected at home and we know that 80% of teachers are giving out that homework, well, you do the math. and if you are not connected at home, you'red isenly fall -- you're suddenly falling behind. not only are parents not getting the jobs, but the child's not getting the education. and suddenly we see what happens with the cycle there. they're not getting the medical help they're getting online, the grandparents aren't getting the medical help, and you're not connecting to your government in the same way because you're not able to take advantage of all those resources. put aside what you can do for fun online, you know, connecting with friends and family which is so important be. you're just left out. and from a competitiveness standpoint as a country f we want to continue to lead the world, you know, the cable industry and the telco industry overall has helped make sure that 95% of this country, you have an opportunity to be connected with high-speed internet at home if you want it.
the problem is the 100 million, the third who are not connecting even though it's there. so what chairman genachowski has focused on -- i have to be careful when i say the chairman because we've got two here -- what chairman genachowski is focused on is the access and the adoption, making sure this it's there, but also making sure people can adopt so we can make sure that divide closes. because if we don't, if we don't figure this out, we're all going to be shaking our heads and saying i can't believe we missed this, i can't believe where korea and 09% adoption -- 90% adoption rates, i can't believe we let some of these other places pass us by. so we're looking in the mirror now. we should not let that happen. we see we're the envy of the world when it comes to connectivity. let's just make -- from access. let's just make sure we're the envy of the world when it comes to adoption. the public/private side is
critical to this because, let's be honest, there's, you know, government's not the solution to everything. government is a great, can be -- there are very important places and roles for government to play, and then there's places where government should be the facilitator and really should help bring people together. the private sector has such an important role to play here. we've seen it in this case, both the tackling of digital literacy, working with the libraries to make sure and the schools to make sure we knock down that barrier dealing with the lower-cost connectivity, and also we've got lower-cost devices. and to make sure we prove the point that it's relevant from jobs and education and health care. so overall our approach, there's no silver bullet that's going to take everything. i cannot commend the cable industry enough and the chairman enough for the leadership here. this is hard stuff. the technology alone, belief me, this has taken months of sitting in a room, bouncing ideas, pushing and pulling, and it's
not easy because these are tough problems. but they're committed, and i really can't say enough how important that is. >> thanks for the overview, josh. >> thank you. >> and, certainly, the national urban league is a committed partner of this effort and looking forward to seeing all of the promise of what happens next. um, i want to go to fernando now and talk about business-to-business interactions and how that can strengthen entrepreneurship which we talk about in the report. one of the statistics that we talk about a lot at the national urban league is the statistic that says that if each small business was able to hire a single employee, we could reach full employment which is a pretty inspiring statistic. and then you consider that a vast majority of the black-owned businesses that were started in recent years are a single-employee business. so as a vp of expersonal affairs and as the head of the research program who's seen so many good
ideas coming in, what are some important learnings that you can share with us about how businesses can support the growth of entrepreneurship particularly in small business? >> thank you, chenelle. and, again, i'm impressed with the effort that the authors have made with this paper. i'm very appreciative to ncta for hosting us here. and i was scribbling furious notes as all of the speakers were speaking because i was learning even as i was here ideas that connect to the paper. and what really struck me was president morial's comment about the big idea, and that is broadband is about jobs. because it's true when you talk about gaps, the sort of adoption problem in terms of barriers, the cost of technology and access, relevance and literacy, this report makes really a compelling case in connecting relevance to jobs.
and economic productivity. and i think that there's a lot to think about there, and there's more work to be done, more research. so i'm writing my notes about more questions that you can try to get scholars to think about. and why does that matter? it matters, um, because the community that we see is so poised to take advantage of broadband as a tool, is so ready for it. and we see longstanding community partnerships with organizations that are trusted, respected and have competence like the national urban league and others, the league of united latin mesh citizens -- american citizens who we have a strong partnership with nationally with connecting technology centers and other organizations that have national competence and, also, deep local roots. why does that matter? it matters because there's
tremendous opportunity for broadband to provide real, a real engine of growth for economic development in communities. when we talk about adoption, we're frequently focusing on, i guess, using the internet. for what? for surfing, for gaining entertainment, information, and there are things that are deeply relevant to consumers. but broadband is also an opportunity platform. and when you look at the material in this report talking about how the african-american entrepreneurial community is poised for growth, looking for resources, broadband offers that. it offers connecting to suppliers and vendors. it offers connecting to potential employees and business partners. it offers in the sector that has been growing services to government and the business-to-business sector a really key tool for business to
perform. and the cable industry has seen tremendous growth in business services over the last several years. it's been one of our, on the business side, one of our most rapidly-growing areas of our business. and so there's, you know, the question about what drives successful partnerships, well, mutual interest drives successful partnerships. so as business service providers, we are interested in doing more to reach more customers in the business sector. well, as we've just heard in this, in the findings today and as i'm sure the national urban league will continue to emphasize, there's a business community that is hungry for the opportunities that broadband provides. and so there's an opportunity on the business side that i think can be leveraged through
partnerships that are focusing on talking about the benefits of broadband, educating consumers and making digital literacy more available, but also showing that broadband is not just about entertainment and information, it's about economic empowerment. and so i think that that's a wonderful area for future be research, it's also a great temporary -- for business development, for industry, for my company, and it's a tremendous and promising area for civil society to look at. what kind of engagement can foster new partnerships in the business sector, because that's an engine for development in the community. it underscores president morial's comment and his point, broadband is about jobs. i think that's a great takeaway from the report today. >> thank you, fernando. um, so a question for any of the panelists. one of the things that we noted
when we talked about one size fits all solutions not being effective here is that we really are able to identify who nose non-adopters are. and as commissioner clyburn referenced in some of her remarks, we really know that population tends to have an income of $20,000 or less a year, tends to have less than a high school diploma. so what thoughts and ideas do you have about how we can target our activities, resources and solutions to that particular population? >> across the 97 affiliates, a lot of our affiliates have computer labs. and one of the two highest entrances we see are to gain additional education through training or to come in and look for jobs. and it's because their incomes are sometimes cost prohibitive in terms of being able to access the internet from home. it's through collaborative efforts like that, so i applaud
the initiative because this is going to make a difference. i think some of the other things, though, is to get young people engaged much earlier oven as you heard president morial speak about s.t.e.m., s.t.e.m. education and extending that forward. a lot of times when a child gets to high school, they've already predetermined where they think they're going to go. then he get to college, and we realize that's not where we're headed. i was supposed to be an english major. i ended up being an i.t. guy. so figure that. [laughter] when you start to look at exposing young people to the internet back in third grade, fourth grade, elementary school and beginning to help them shape their ideas of where they could be, but if they can't reinforce it after hours through school, from school when they go home, it's that additional education learns that needs to take place there. and that's why you'll hear a lot of the affiliates starting
s.t.e.m. academies, after-school programs that begin to extend the footprint and exposure to not only the high-level executives, but to the executives and to the people who are also working in call centers. i think one of the greatest advantages of broadband technology is that you can actually be in a call center while sitting in your living room, you know? and that through technology they can dial out, and that 1-800 number is going somewhere in central florida in a home and being able to employ somebody that's doing telecommuting when telecommuting has probably -- had my company in d.c. done it, i would have never made it to florida, you know? they were so bent on me needing to drive around the beltway from annapolis to rockville and back every day that, you know, that caused my migration back home to florida. [laughter] so broadband even causes southern migration. [laughter] i would say, though, one of the
things you look at when you start to think about especially young people, when they can have access to technology and even though you've seen the african-american community bridge the gap in terms of consumer usage, we need to have that gap bridged also in terms of production and creation and producers of technology and business owners. and one of the ways to do that, i would encourage the commission as well as the broadband companies, is to invest into the creation of business opportunities for african-americans to participate in the growth of the broadband adoption piece. by doing that we then create centers like the center for work force innovation that are plugging kids in. one of the big challenges there are reaching out. the reason that i am an i.t. professional that came through this path and now over on my high-touch side of helping build community is a xerox engineer came to my sixth grade classroom with a box of lightbulbs and a
rubber hose. he turned all the lights off in the room, put the lightbulb under the box and said he was going to show light all over the room. we didn't have the classic terms that my son had, he would go, really? we went, yeah, right. but what he did, a young kid was introduced to fiberoptic technology, and that was in '70 something. [laughter] but what i want to say is that inspired me to go after a technology career. when we make that investment back in our youth through s.t.e.m. academies, through s.t.e.m.-related activities, we begin to create a pathway. so, but you have to have access. so i applaud the c2c program and being able to have that as an access point. and, you know, that's something i'm excited about because then it also bridges a collaborative opportunity between school district and community-based partner -- >> that's right. can i delve on that, actually?
>> please. >> i think, listen, as much as we'd like to solve things in washington, this is one of those things that gets done on the ground. you will not win connectivity here. you're going to win connectivity, a, by working with the right partners who have people like, you know, the urban league and 4-h and united way and a list of others who are, who are in the communities, on the ground, have the relationships and are trusted. right? and it's the schools. and it's the parent teacher associations, and it's the parents themselves and getting the word out and making sure they know they can take advantage of opportunities like connect to compete, but more importantly that they know what the benefits are and get their children online and show them the benefits. i think we're all going to live -- digital learning in this country in the next five years, i think none of us can even begin to imagine what classrooms
are going to be like a few years from now. there's been little innovation in that space, and the textbook space, right, we've been using the same traditional print textbooks for generations. very little innovation. some of the pedagogy has changed, but basically the formula of delivery has been a one size fits all. with technology and broadband and being connect inside the class room and out of the classroom, suddenly every device, you know, there's one of them, every device will become a personalized learning experience that will be target today that child and will teach that child how he or she learns. the same substance, but it will move it around and make it much more exciting. we will be blown away by how we will teach and learn in and out of the classroom. and when your child has trouble with the questions at the end of the chapter like we used to have with the workbooks, new chapters will appear magically to help make sure before they come to school the next day, they
understand that subject matter. this is not "star trek," this is here, right? but it will not work without the connectivity because it doesn't work at home. so you can't just have them connected at school, and we do e-rate at the fcc to make sure schools and libraries get connected, but the demands on the infrastructure will only increase. and you know this because you're on the ground in the commitments, right? it's there, it's making sure the kids, our children, our students get these, get some form of tablet and be connected, a device to be connected, but also that they get the broadband at home. we, if they don't have it, they're cut off, right? that's why companies like yours are doing this sort of work, i know in part, to make sure -- and it's good business, right? once they get connected, hopefully, a, they'll buy other stuff from you, but also they'll stay with you. once you're online, we're online, you don't want to give it up. because what the windows and the doors it opens. and that's what this is all about, getting people connected, engaged. because if we don't, again,
they're left out of the economy, out of the jobs and out of the education, s.t.e.m. or otherwise. and that is what we're worried about and concerned about and why we have to do this. but it has to be done on the ground with the people who know, the people who have relationships, and we realize that. and i think the companies realize that as well. >> i want to pick up on something that josh said about, um, well, talking about kids. one of the interesting things i've seen come out of pew recently sort of reaffirms probable something that's not a surprise to people in this room which is the number is around 95% of kids report that they go online, you know, to do different things, different activities. so kids are online, right? now, it may not be easy, i it my not be convenient, some of them may not have internet access at home.
but kids are either asked to be doing homework or going online for different reasons. so i think that there's that coming where we're seeing, you know, rice -- right now we have the sort of next generation coming along. i think it's important not to solve for yesterday's problem. so let's keep in mind what we're doing, that we've got young people coming along. they're internet savvy. they're broadband connected in one way or another, and we need to also solve for their challenges as well. so i think the point about engaging them where they are, engaging them on education, engaging them in s.t.e.m. which is something that my company has prioritized as our philanthropic commitment and initiative is so important. the gap, you know, when you look at minorities, 0% of the -- 30% of the country's population, 10% of the s.t.e.m. work force, you know, that is a major gap. and, again, president morial
referred to it in the terms of economic development in our growth. i think it's so important to focus on that. the, sorry, just wanted to make an aside about it. the point about one size doesn't fit all. it's so important in the report, everybody here knows it. so what does that mean? what it means, i think, is, you know, what's the opportunity? the opportunity is to remember it and, you know, what can we do? because we know one size doesn't fit all. we know that. the value of information sharing is really high because even in large companies, you know, we're struggling to find out who are the local partners for job training, who are the local partners for helping us with digital literacy? we know some names, you know, we might have some history, but sharing that information is so relevant -- >> we're going to solve this for you. you're going to be very excited. >> i hope that you are. and, again, i point my finger at government because i think that
is a role n. the fall as part of your efforts, by the way, when you're going to be -- >> i'm looking at -- [inaudible] >> yeah, i know. you call an 800 number or go online and put your zip code in, you'll find out where the nearest digital literacy train is. >> this is the hard work you're referring to. >> this is the hard work that gets done, and it's community-based organizations that are part of this and the schools and libraries. and i think you're right, we've -- the torrent of young people are coming, they're touching it because a lot of them are getting it at school maybe if they're not getting it at home. but we still want to be sure that as they're coming we're not forget being about the 100 million who don't because seniors need to get online, and, you know, regular working folk need to get online. and we have to help make sure that happens, right? as the children do as well. you know. >> you have to strike that
balance. when you think about it, the majority of the people with work force innovation are people who probably fit in that economic footprint of $20,000 and below. and, you know, you can have all the devices in the world and all the connectivity, you can even have the 800 number, but you've t still got to get it to them. >> right, of course. >> and i think that's where industry wants to make an invest. , invest back in the community-based organizations on the ground. a lot of times keeping those doors open and making it happen are the difference between somebody to get that leg up and get that onramp to higher ed. because i think through the urban league programs that we've done, as you heard our president talking about 100 years of giving people access to jobs that pay living walks, one of the ways that's going to be for the future, and i love the point about engineering for our kids. it is my 16-year-old's expectation that we will have better internet than we have today. >> we're working on it.
>> he's already, well, dad, you know, when are we going to start doing it across lasers. he's a geek, sorry about that. laugh. >> coming soon. >> but, you know, to your point, it is being able to hit every level of the spectrum, being able to reach down as well as being able to hit the expectation of where the kids are coming and going to take it. but we have to -- if you want to talk about where's the investment, invest into the people, invest into the opportunity to get on the internet, invest into the organizations that are going to do the outreach. you know, around the center for work force innovation it's not just broadband. i see a colleague here from epa who's probably looking away at this point. i have preached this to everyone who will listen, and that by leveraging innovative ideas by reverse engineering people into jobs, broadband has to be a key component. we can then change our economic growth. we can lessen the dependency on government because you then start to put that into the organizations that can extend it forward into community and begin
to make the change. that brought together is what i'm applauding here because that's the private/public collaborative that's got to happen. you want to shrink government, then invest back in the organizations that are delivering it every day. empower them to be able to empower the communities that you serve. you want people to be able to purchase your services, let's empower them with the income so that they can move to living wages instead of just surviving. $20,000, to think in 2012 that we still have families in america making less than $20,000 is a challenge to us as americans to reach down and grab each other by the arm and pull us up. and that's what i deal with on a day-to-day basis, and my other colleagues across the urban league movement is how do we leverage that. for instance, with the apa, we're integrated there. we're looking at brownsville technicians training. how do we create and leverage the brownville training program to train people on the new technology. and a lot of people say, well, how is cleaning up a chemically-contaminated field --
trust me, i read the course outline and thought, well, maybe i just need to go back to school. because everything was involving some type of online connectivity for data, for data processing and sharing. but the beauty of that is these young people who are coming, and the people who can be retooled, will go off and start businesses that will need broadband connectivity, that will need access to capital to move forward. and i think that ties together -- >> just getting ready to jump in there too. >> sorry. >> it's okay. i hate to interrupt, but i do want to make sure we get a few questions from the audience before we get ready to go, and i think the point you were making is right in line with our thinking along with the theme for the national urban league which is how do we connect education and employment together and prepare both young people and workers who need to retool for a new workplace for the jobs of the future. so i think being able to reverse engineer, seeing with the jobs are and being able to bring that
to the classroom helps to answer some of those questions. are there any questions from the audience, and can you identify yourself, please? >> good afternoon. max jackson, president and national confederation of community broadcasters. two quick questions. earlier, we heard the desire to take advantage of trends to address challenges, so i'm wondering about youth and going off something you alluded to, are there any programs addressing how we can take youth and their momentum in terms of using new media, social media, etc., to instead of being consumers, but producers? and secondly, hbcus, how do they fit into the equation, historically-black colleges in terms of lit literacy and some of the work that you're doing? >> let me say just two quick things, then you can move on. in terms of youth, i would encourage you to look at the -- and i'm going make a shameless plug -- www.connect a million minds.com.
that's the web site for our engagement initiative to reach young people and connect them with science, technology, engineering and math. there are a lot of great ways that you can use that platform as a tool to find opportunities, to think about -- help young people think about themselves as creators of science and technology and not just as consumers. and there's a lot of activity going on there. and we, at least, that's -- that connection function we've taken on to try to make it easier for people to find those opportunities in their community. so i would like to examples on that. and on hbcus, it's a great question. engaging with the academic community, first of all, i think is part of what we're doing through our research program. but i think also being more flexible about those engagements so we're talking about research, we're talking about internships, we're talking about exposing students to careers, to jobs,
that's something industry can do and we're excited about doing more of, but it's also something that can highlighted and shared. what one company does, what the cable industry does to engage with hbcus is a small part of a much bigger solution, and i think all of us have a role to play in that. >> i'll just also mention there's a case of our s.t.e.m. acadny in chattanooga, tennessee, which provides additional education and there's direct applications with robotics and things like that. students are actually being able to put their skills to work and starting to address one of the challenges which is if you don't recognize the opportunities that a s.t.e.m. career affords and take the right course work at the right time in high school, you'll get to college and not even have the opportunity to pursue that career. so that's another example for that. anyone else want to take a quick --
>> i'm okay. >> okay. another question? yes. they're are going to bring the microphone. >> thank you for putting this on, i'm the president and executive director for the asian-american justice center. as i'm hearing about opportunities, i'm wondering if you all could share with us what are the meaningful ways that were creating conditions at the teacher teaching level, right? because we can give kids access to the equipment, we can do all kinds of wonderful stuff to give them the opportunities, but i also know the teachers that teach on a day-to-day basis, if they're not equip with the the right skill sets to teach our children in the classroom, the connectivity is a major missing piece. and i wonder if you could share some of the things you're all doing with the teaching profession. >> i'll start.
in orange county public schools, they have the project called leadership orange. every single classroom has a smartboard, has internet connectivity, has the ability to not only connect to the web for research, but also has the ability to connect for programming. and so what they're doing is having teach-ins where they're having the new educators come on and teach some of the more tenured educators. i think that's an opportunity to invest in, too, is teach the teacher. i know one president program ths actually going to be doing that. this summer at oak ridge high school in orlando they're rolling out a modeling piece of technology, a flight simulation program that teaches science, technology, engineering, math through an application of learning how to the fly. they're also teaching history through this application. i had an opportunity to spend time talking with one of the creators of this, but they're leveraging something that kids are interested in in teaching.
where they're going to teach the instructors is they're bringing them all together at oak ridge across five different high schools to start to teach the teachers. i think new teachers are rolling out with that expectation that that's the classroom i'm going into, and i know students are expecting that because i think your point earlier, i wonder when, you know, i know at one of our high schools the brand new high school the administrator invested in every child will have an ipad. textbooks will be load today the ipad. now, they're still mostly text-based, but i look forward to the day when you can have martin luther king giving the address instead of being told the words of the address. and that's, you know, i think that's how you engage our kids. our kids live in an ipad ii world, and we're still teaching them harcourt press. >> i think building on a point you made which i thought was very important, technology is,
they're tools, and the teachers have to teach. and i think, you know, whether it's smartboards or the interactive digital tablets, those are all at the end of the day help teachers make their lives easier so they can spend more time teaching. some of the new teachers may understand it better. that has to be part of the equation. you can't just do this. if you just put the computer in the room and don't teach the teacher how to incorporate it or use aspects of it, it'll just sit and collect dust in the corner of the room, you know? so we have to make sure it's never seen as a replacement for the teacher, but as a way to cut back the teacher spending time checking attendance. that's just to safe you time so you can be a more effective teacher because you have more
data information. none of us do our jobs anymore without lots of data and information. that's why you've got good reports, right? you're running lines of business. why respect teachers given -- why aren't teachers given more points of data? who we should help group together to help each other, those are all ways to make it easier. these thicks are tools to help make us more efficient and smarter so we can, you know, compete. >> if you want to see a program here in the local area, and i'm probably going to make chenelle's day, go to howard university. hbcu, howard middle school leverages technology through a grant from apple. every student will walk in and pick up a laptop or, i'm sorry, an apple mac book and put -- i'm a pc guy. but they'll pick up a mac book, and they will do their entire class on that screen where the teacher's allowed to teach. but here's the beauty of it, through their program they're also putting that mac book at home, and as part of their
program, they're requiring the parent to come in and interact with the student. so if you want the see one, and then, you know, it's extended further. the teachers that are coming out of howard university are intern anything this type of a program. so they're beginning to incubate the teachers straight out of college with that expectation this is what i'm going. i was so moved by that program when i saw it about three years ago, and to find out the administrator is a howard university graduate that came through the internship dealing with these kids. they don't stop there, they roll the southeast with this incredible phillips high school where you have ninth graders doing robotic-type training in ninth grade. proof positive you make the investment and teachers are given the tools, they will use them. the challenge is we haven't been placing them -- if i could make one other point. we have to be equitable of our placement of technology in schools, okay? you can't really say, well, this school momentum need it -- you have to be equitable. we don't close schools because they're in neighborhoods and bus
kids to different -- that's going back the wrong way. we need to take technology and broaden it and extend it into every single school. when you look at the african-american-sent rick schools, the schools dollar not funded well and don't have access to technologies, kids don't perform well. but if you make those investments or you end up moving those students out, then they perform well because they're given the opportunity to grow. so we have to make sure there are equitable investments into all of our schools and communities. >> and that is the perfect segway into wrapping this up. first, let me ask everyone to give applause to our panel. [applause] thank you so much for your insights that you shared. and i'll just say by way of preview, in the will not be the national urban league's last foray into broadband and tech issues. look for our state of urban business report this fall that we'll be talking about tech industries. and also we will, we have recently released our state of
black america report which also provides a wealth of data on these issues as well as our education and employment eight-point plan. so i encourage you to look at all of those resources. our panelists will be able to stick around for a few minutes, so if you have questions, i encourage you to come up and chat with them, and thank you again for coming out and learning about our report. >> thank you. >> thanks. [applause] be. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
>> and we'll more from the national urban league a little later, at 9 on c-span a look at recently-passed state voting laws such as those requiring photo identification to vote. the national urban league recently issued a report saying many new state laws on voter eligibility are, in fact, efforts to reduce voter turnout. and just before that on c-span tonight, newt gingrich who today suspended his presidential campaign. he won two primaries in south carolina and his home state of georgia. today he announced the end of his campaign. you can see that tonight on c-span starting at 8 eastern. >> bin laden was a
strategically-relevant communicator with various and disparate outfits, and to a certain extent i have to confess i had insider knowledge. i worked at center come and afghanistan, and we knew bin laden personally was involved in communications to try to corral and bring under control zawahiri. we knew he was making outreach to al-shabab and somalia working through mediums and other individuals, but we knew he was there and doing that. but as a consequence, and no surprise when you're talking about a global id i don't imagine -- bin laden was relevant. >> how has national security changed in the year since the death of osama bin laden? former and current administration officials, analysts and intelligence community members continue to weigh in. see what they have to say, all archived and searchable. >> the obama administration this week acknowledged for the first time the use of unmanned aerial
drone strikes against terrorism suspects. president obama had instructed aides to be more open about the use of drones. this is about an hour, ten minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the wilson center, and a special welcome to our chairman of the board, joe gildenhorn, and his wife, elma, who is very active on the wilson council. this afternoon's conversation is, as i see it, a great tribute to the kind of work we do here. we care intensely about having our most important policymakers
here and in getting objective accounts of what the united states government and other governments around the world are doing. on september 10th, 2001, i had lunch with l. paul bremer. jerry bremer, as he is known, had chaired the congressionally-charted commission on terrorism on which i served. it was one of the three task forces to predict major terror attack on u.s. soil. at that lunch we lamented that no one was taking our report seriously. the next day the world changed. in my capacity as a senior democrat on the house intelligence committee, i was headed to the u.s. capitol at 9 a.m. on 9/11 when an urgent call from my staff turned me around. to remind, most think that the capitol in which the intelligence committee offices were then located was the
intended target of the fourth hijacked plane. congress shut down, a terrible move, i thought, and 250 or so members mingled on the capitol lawn, obvious targets if that plane had arrived. i frantically tried to reach my youngest child, then at a d.c. high school, but the cell towers were down. i don't know where john brennan was that day, but i do know that the arc of our lives came together after that. when he served as deputy executive director of the cia, when i became the ranking member on the house intelligence committee, when he became the first director of the terrorist threat integration center, an organization that was set up by then-president bush 43. when i was the principle author of legislation which became the intelligence reform and terrorist prevention act, a statute which reorganized our intelligence community for the first time since 1947 and
renamed ttic, the organization john had headed, the national counterterrorism center. when he served as the first director of the nctc, when i chaired the intelligence subcommittee of the homeland security committee, when he moved into the white house as deputy national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism and assistant to the president, and when i succeeded lee hamilton here at the wilson center last year. finally, when he became president obama's point person on counterterrorism strategy and when the wilson center commenced a series of programs which are still ongoing, the fist of which -- the first of which we held on 9/12/2011 to ask what the next ten years should look like and whether this country needs a clearer legal framework around domestic intelligence.
clearly, the success story of the past decade is last may's takedown of osama bin laden. at the center of that effort, were the senior security leadership of our country. i notice dennis mcdonough in the audience right here in the front row, and certainly it included president obama and john brennan. they made the tough calls. but i also know and we all know how selfless and extraordinary were the actions of unnamed intelligence officials and navy seals. the operation depended on their remarkable skills and personal courage. they informed the mission. the wilson center is honored to welcome john brennan here today on the eve of this first anniversary of the bin laden raid. president obama will headline events tomorrow, but today we get an advance look from the
insider's insider. one of president obama's most influential aides to manage counterterrorism strategy in pakistan, yemen and somalia. activities in this space, as i mentioned, at the wilson center are ongoing. as are terror threats against our country. i often say we won't defeat those threats by military might alone. we must win the argument. security and liberty are not a zero sum game. either get more of both or less. as ben franklin said, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty, nor safety. so as we welcome john brennan, i also want to congratulate him and president obama for nominating the full complement
of members to the privacy and civil liberties board, another part of the 2004 intelligence reform law and a key part of assuring that america's counterterrorism efforts also protect our constitution and our values. at the end of today's event, we would appreciate it if everyone would, please, remain seated while mr. brennan departs the building. thank you for coming, please, welcome john brennan. [applause] >> thank you so much, jane, for the very kind introduction and that very nice and memorable walk down memory lane as our paths did cross so many times over the years. but thank you, also, for your leadership here of the wilson center. it is a privilege for me to be here today and to speak at this group. and you have spent many years in public service, and it continues here at the wilson center today. and there are a few individuals in this country who can match
the range of jane's expertise from the armed services to intelligence to homeland security and anyone who has appeared before her committee new firsthand just how extensive and deep that expertise was. so, jane, i'll just say that i'm finally glad to be sharing the stage with you instead of testifying before you. [laughter] it's a privilege to be next to you. so to you and everyone here at the wilson center, thank you for your invaluable contributions, your research, your scholarship which help further our national security every day. i very much appreciate the opportunity -- in particular it's ethics and it's efficacy. it is fitting that we have this discussion here today at the woodrow wilson center. it was here in august of 2007 that then-senator obama described how he would bring the war in iraq to a responsible end and refocus our efforts on the war that has to be won, the war
against al-qaeda. particularly in the tribal regions of afghanistan and pakistan. he said that we would carry on this fight while upholding the laws and our values and that we would work with allies and partners wherever possible. but he also made it clear that he would not hesitate to use force against terrorists who pose a direct threat to americans, and he said if he had actionable intelligence, he would act to protect the american people. so it's especially fitting that we have this discussion here today. one year ago today president obama was then facing the scenario that he discussed here at the woodrow wilson center five years ago, and he did not hesitate to act. soon thereafter our special operations forces were moving toward the compound in pakistan where we believed osama bin laden might be hiding. by the end of the next day, president obama could confirm that justice had finally been
delivered to the terrorist responsible for the attacks of september 11th, 2001, and for so many other deaths around the world. the death of bin laden was our most strategic blow yet against al-qaeda. credit for that success belongs to the courageous forces who carried out that mission at extraordinary risk to their lives. to the many intelligence professionals who pieced together the clues over the years that led to bin laden's hideout. and to prime minister ma whoday -- president obama who gave the order to go in. now one year later it's appropriate to assess where we stand in this fight. we've always been clear that the end of bin laden would neither mark the end of al-qaeda, nor our resolve to destroy i. so along with allies and partners, we have been unrelenting. and when we assessed that al-qaeda of 2012, i think it is fair to say that as a result of our efforts, the united states is more secure, and the american people are safer. here's why.
in pakistan al-qaeda's leadership ranks have continued to suffer heavy losses. this includes kashmiri, one of al-qaeda's top operational planners, killed a month after bin laden. it includes al-qaeda's deputy leader. it includes a planner of attacks against the united states and europe until he was cap which wh are -- captured by pakistani forces. with its most skilled commanders being lost so quickly, al-qaeda has had trouble replacing them. this is one of the many conclusions we have been able to draw from documents seized at al-qaeda's compound some of which will be published online for the first time this week by west point's counterterrorism center. the rise of lower leaders who are not as experienced, and this would lead to the mistakes. al-qaeda's leaders continue to
struggle with affiliates. under intense pressure in pakistan, they have fewer plays to train and group the newest operatives. morale is low with intelligence indicating that some members are giving up and returning home, no doubt aware that this is a fight they will never win. in short, al-qaeda is losing badly, and bin laden knew it at the time of his death. in documents we seized, he confessed to disaster after disaster. he even urged his leaders to flee the tribal regions and to go places away from aircraft photography and bombardment. for all these reasons, it is harder than ever for al-qaeda core in pakistan to plan and execute large-scale, potentially catastrophic attacks against our home lan. today it is increasingly clear that compared to 9/11 the core of al-qaeda leadership is a shadow of its former self. al-qaeda has been left with just a handful of capable leaders and operatives, and with
continued pressure, is on the path to its destruction. and for the first time since this fight began, we can look ahead and envision a world in which th al-qaeda core is simply no longer relevant. never the less, the dangerous threat from al-qaeda has not disappeared. as the al-qaeda core falters, it continues to look to affiliates and adherents to carry on its murderous cause. yet these affiliates continue to lose key commanders and capabilities as well. in somalia it is, indeed, worrying to witness al-qaeda's merger with al-shabaab whose ranks include foreign fighters, some with u.s. passports. at the same time, al-shabaab continues to focus primarily on launching regional attacks and, ultimately, this is a merger between two organizations in decline. in yemen, al-qaeda in the arabian peninsula, or aqap, continues to feel the effects of the death last year