tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN December 26, 2014 4:13am-4:46am EST
>> my pleasure. >> >> one of the things he said that really resonated with me was your trip to india where you saw how they kept people divided and really wanting to move beyond the circumstances. my question to you is -- and palm beach county, we see that love of division amongst a lot of nonprofits. everybody is competing for resources and sometimes it doesn't create the kind of environment where people are working together and working collectively toward common goals. my question is, what would be your strategy for dressing those kinds of issues and have you seen any communities where they have kind of found the answer and are working together. not necessarily competing
against each other, but working together toward the same goals? >> thank you, james. i have seen many communities that are working very hard together. the grant system is, in my opinion a foreign economy. i have written extensively about what i believe are the gender origins of modern philanthropy. in the 1970's there were only 68,000 nonprofits in the late 1960's. 10 years later it was bumping up on a million. i believe a lot of it had to do with my mother's generation of women who were leaving the home to get jobs because the economy shifted and the one income household did not work anymore. many women -- my mother watched, as she raised us, she watched from the sidelines the a civil rights movement, the migrant farmworkers movement. they wanted to be part of t. women were only 21% of the
workforce in 1960 and they were bumping up on 54%. you made -- you had a huge number of women coming into the workforce. i believe they were told by a large part of society, i love that you want to work, but you don't have skills. you are a mother. at you can do charity. and this was pretty much just white guys giving away other white guys' money. they said, we are not interested in funding economic empowerment. it is always important to remember dr. king was murdered on the way to washington to lead the poor people's campaign 04 economic justice. not the poor people's campaign for food banks and charities. that is what we should be working towards. as long as we are funded this way, and in fact this is really ven tougher now, because the
reality is the people with the money after 2008 are the people who caused the problem in 2008. it for us more and more and more to get the grants we need, we have to go up to the people who have no interest in the conversations we must lead. i have got to remember i am on c-span and i am out here trying to raise some money myself. the reality is, many of the funders, many of the biggest funders for the lamprey -- for philanthropy are people who do not pay a good wage. or people who own large amounts of food. when we want to talk about nutrition or wage -- which are the two things we should be talking about in my business. again, this is with love in our hearts, but to escape from that, we need to have better control of our finances. this is why i am intrigued, for example, in california -- they have talked forever about a
credit union. the reality is if we put our money together, the top 10 nonprofits and anything will count put our money together and say in effect, we're are not going to merge our assets, the we're going to merge our banking business. if you want our business, we want access to capital. i don't know about you all, but in d.c., we had a $12 million theater organization. $12 million. if i was lucky, i get a 200,000 dollars grant. that was the big prize. you know how much money i may come through there with $12 million every year? you need to start thinking about the merger mentality. the think about all of the different ways we stand together. imagine if we create a little seal of approval. man, if you want less poverty, look for the community action seal. every time you shop in the store, the store pays a living wage. every time you buy here, you make us go away.
that idea of channeling the economic power of our volunteers. thank you for volunteering, but think where you spend your money. if you want more money in the treasury, less charity, you have to decide where you're going to spend your money every single day. i tell you -- there are 14 million of us. 14 million people live -- work and the nonprofit sector. i know we are some of the most loyal voters in america, but because our organizations cannot talk about --if someone came to the d.c. central kitchen and said, robert, what you think of these candidates? and i am a pro. i cannot say, based on my experience, this candidate has the best possible plan for limited and the need for my charity. if i do that, i have broken the law. the supreme court says a business can do that all day long, but i can't? these are the kinds of things we need to be much more deliberate about that. particularly for a young man,
older leaders will oftentimes say we can't do that. and we have to respect the trials they went through. the point is for your generation, you have to be polite, but firm and say, i'm sorry, we have to go a different road then, because we can't afford this kind of relationship with our government. we are doing too much hard work. we are doing too much artwork and the committee. it is patently undemocratic for the nonprofit sector to be silence this way. and going back to the risk that our forefathers and foremothers did, we need to embrace the same risk. not reckless, but calculated risk. the law, i believe, is on our side. i will have a conversation with anybody about this. i am living proof of this reality. no matter how efficient i make my business, and i am really good at what i do, no matter how efficient i am, i should never be in this business. i love my work. i hate my
job. the reality is, i feed poor people leftover food. that is just not america. that is not the america i was born into. that is not the america they taught me and my history book. that is not the america i see in the future. we must fight for something very different. we have to consider being employers ourselves. historically we train them, send them out in the broader economy, they are supposed to embrace them. it is hard to get someone to hire a felon, a working mom. what is the incentive? there is no incentive. we are the ones. we need to start the businesses. that way we can control the wage. we can reinvest in the community. let's get back to this. we are the best business in america. all we do is reinvest over and over and over. we are a mayor's dream come true. it is our job to make them see that beautiful light. thank you very much.
>> a look at cyber crime and a look at the federal government in prosecuting those crimes. the u.s. attorney for the western district of pennsylvania spoke at a justice department georgetown law symposium. this is about 10 minutes. [applause] >> thau thank you very much for that generous introduction.
the good news first i'm going to be very direct and to the point and we're going to get out of here very quickly. this has boon an extraordinary conference and i'm grateful for the invitation to be here and the honor of closing the conference. we developed a bit of a signature in western pennsylvania in the cyber realm. and certainly if you've been paying attention, 2014 was a water shed year for us. on may 19 we brought the case against the five members of the p.l.a. for economic espionage against pittsburgh companies united steel workers and workers. in weeks back i was washington to discuss the case we're here to talk about today. our body also includes iceman. ou've heard him referred to as iceman. he is max butler. as alluded to earlier, iceman was a criminal, a cooperator
and a criminal. and i think that reflects part of our challenge. one of the cases you didn't hear about today is university of pittsburgh bomb threats case which we know as u.s.a. versus adam buzz bi. and guest: it's important to hear about this case and i'm going to try to give you the e body of our work as a reference point to try to tie together what you heard today. because much of what we dealt with and the practical reality of handling these cases was addressed in various ways by many of the speakers over the last 8 hours. but the pit bomb threat case happened right after we had a mass shooting at our principle psychiatric hospital in pittsburgh affiliated with the university of pittsburgh and we had over 100 bomb threats that were coming through anon miesers of various types through media outlets causing great terror in our flagship university.
and i took the step at that time of activating the joint terrorism task force which is considered controversial. it also put us way out on a limb in terms of whether we could solve a cyber needle in a hey stak problem. but i did so because in pittsburgh, we have some of the best resources in the country to deal with the cyber threat. you heard earlier about keith who was the agent on the iceman max butler case. he is the head of squad 16 in pittsburgh. earlier today for a brief period of time look was in the room, now with n.s.d., formerly in western pennsylvania and he was the prosecutor. if you don't want to read the book king pin you can pull up american greed and put in iceman and for 55 minutes you can read and see luke and keith and that's kind of the beginning of the story in western pennsylvania. but with all of that talent and the ncfta, national cyber
forensic training alliance, a one of a kind public-private partnership. and cserp, i still felt that we were going way out on a limb but we had no choice. we had a shooting with fatalities and less than a week later a series of threats against the university and the chancellor was in the position of determining whether or not he evacuated upon these cyber-based threats. he ultimately did each time. and there was pretty much no question that that was exactly what the threatener wanted him to do. this threat stream ultimately had a tail to it which is two individuals from cincinnati who were another part of the moniker to used the further terrorize the university. without going through all the details, it involved
international cooperation, a trip to ireland by me, because we had a pittsburgher, the president of the steelers was ambassador of ireland to implore him to make sure that the garda understood how important this was. we were able to identify individual, adam stuart buzz bi who has been charged and we are doing everything we can to extradict him to bring him to pittsburgh. he has since in an open interview confessed that he is the one who did this. i think that was a huge achievement and all of that was going on at the same time since i began as u.s. attorney in 2010 we were working towards efforts in the case and in what we know as u.s. versus wangong, the chies mean espionage case. why duds this matter? it's somewhat lost in this
discussion. we need to take as first principles that cyber intrusions affect real people in real ways. our entire approach in pittsburgh is victim cent rick. so boss co's comment about how microsoft does its business resonates with me. but in each one of the cases that i tell you about -- and of course we have all spindle of cyber cases. we have one of the largest concentrations of exploitation of children cases involving cyber medium. we have cases involving a theft. we announced one that's in the news today involving $1 million of theft with a couple who were using surfing social security numbers at wal-mart with 900 victims. so we're doing this every day. and like most u.s. attorneys' office a large part of what we're doing you never hear about.
but it has been victim focused and it has also been done with attention to the fact that we embrace the challenge of having to deal with both the security issues and the privacy issues. that responsibility in western pennsylvania falls on my shoulders. and like most u.s. attorneys we accept and relish that challenge. and all of the conversation about where the legislation and the law will go will never take that responsibility out of the u.s. attorney's office ultimately. we can have both. it's a false choice that we have to give up one to have the other. but i am heartened and take note that we cannot have privacy without security. and we have to deal with the threat as it is. so it's a borderless threat. it's insidious. even before encryption it involved evaporating evidence. when nick cole talks about how slow the government moves when we move in, be in one of my
meetings at 9:00 every monday where we have a dedicated national security and cyber group where we operate as if the whole world depends on our work and listen to me as the fire breathing dragon saying we need to move faster. we can't just accept that we can do this in a linear fashion like we would do in an historical crime case. this is a dynamic challenge. as i said to the f.b.i.'s directors times two and to the leadership of the doff justice. if this matters as much as we say it does we have to reject all convention. we have to let the limits of our imagination be the guide to where we go to deal with this difficult problem. you see, because i believe that you have to understand my narrative about pittsburgh which you can translate into your own narrative about where you reside to appreciate how significant this really is. not withstanding martin's
provocative jab earlier today, pittsburgh is the center of the universe if you did not know that. we were the home of the american industrial revolution. andrew carnegie started steel there. john rockefeller started oil there. if you go back and read the book titan, you can get a quick refresher on this. the polio vaccine was discovered in pittsburgh. much of organ transplant technology happened there. we are and have evolved into a medical-technical mecca. carnegie melon is there. we have through westing house and others the three quarters of the nuclear technology in this company. and i haven't even begun to talk about the steelers, the pirates, and the penguins. but you need to understand that this story can be told about any city in the country but
this was the story that was moving me in pittsburgh. because as a resident of pittsburgh, and as a person from western pennsylvania, i have seen directly as we have responded to the challenges as we changed ourselves from a rust belt city to an industrial company. and what a factor cyber intrusions was to us. and it wasn't about us and law enforcement or the great academics who work on this problem or the judiciary or the private sector partners or indeed the great companies who have forged this new frontier in the internet. like google and microsoft and others. it's about people in brad ok and ms keys port and claritien, who might lose their jobs, who might face economic distress because whether you're talking about recapturing the research
development investment that our companies make which is stolen when we have i.p. state-sponsored espionage, or you talk about folks who might fit as described earlier, the most vulnerable among us, seniors and children, who either have their retirement stolen or are exploited on line in the most venal way imaginable, this really matters. so i am very, very grateful for the partnership with all of you. i have been given this new responsibility to help coordinate the great efforts of the u.s. attorney component of the department of justice but i'm here to assure you that as grave as this threat is over the course of the last 4-1/2 years i've been heartened by the great talent and commitment and will of the people who are working on it. and that now includes all of you. so thank you very much for attending today. and i look forward to working
>> right away. we're going to hear from professor ken blackwell and he is a member of the board of directors of the n.r.a. i'm going to let him tell you a little bit more about himself and kind of explain to you where the n.r.a. is now and a little bit about their history and what they're doing. >> thank you, regina. it's my pleasure to be with you all today. and to be a member of uch a distinguished panel. i've been a mayor of a major u.s. city, cincinnati, ohio. and an undersecretary at a the u.s. department of housing and
urban development, under the leadership of the late jack kemp. three years i served as u.s. ambassador to the united nations in charge of the human rights portfolio and the representative to the u.n. human rights commission. but i am a son of a veteran, who defended the constitution of the united states and brought his family up in appreciation of the constitution of the united states and in full understanding of the history of black people and exercising their right to bear arms and to defend themselves. whether that was as an associate member of deacons of defense, because of his colleagues who came back from world war ii who started the
deacons of defense in the south, or as a concerned husband and father who wanted to make sure that he was always able to protect his family against harm. he was a commonsense fellow. he basically raised us with an appreciation of the constitution and the declaration. but he was fond of the second paragraph of the declaration of independence. as you remember, it starts, "we hold these truths to be self-evident." he was found of saying that is a sophisticated way of saying "any knucklehead should be able to get this." we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. what he said is we're not all equal in height, weight, intelligence. we're not all equal in skin color. but we're all equal in human dignity and we're all accountable to god. we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are
created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with certain uninalienable rights, which means are most fundamental human rights are not grants from government. they're gifts from god. and that among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. he was always quick to underscore that it was very difficult to pursue happiness or to enjoy liberty if you're dead. and that the first obligation of an individual, a fundamental right, was the right of self-protection and to protect your family and property. and so this was one simple man's understanding, hardworking man, god-fearing man's understanding of natural law and natural right that were encompassed in the declaration f independence, but also protected by the constitution
of the united states. and as one who had gone to world war ii to defend that constitution and all the blessings that it bestows on those of us who were blessed to be raised and be citizens of this country, it gives me great pleasure to work with an organization that since 1871 has defended our onstitutional right to self-protection and the right to bear arms. ladies and gentlemen, as a former mayor, i know that the first obligation of elected leaders of a city is to provide a safe environment. i also know, from working with budgets, that what we are now experiencing in city after city, county after county, are budgets that are so tight that it has actually reduced personnel on the street and reduced response time.
and whether it's sheriff david clark in milwaukee county or james craig in detroit, as police chief, they understand that when you have situations where police response time is 20, 30, 45 minutes, all harm can be done to you and your family. therefore, you have a fundamental right, if you so choose, to protect yourself, to protect your property and to protect your family, and no government, at any level, has the right to stop that natural ight that we have. and so as the chairman of the grassroots development committee of the n.r.a., one of america's first civil rights organizations, and one that has been on the frontlines in community after community, whether it is in washington d.c. or chicago, illinois, we in fact have been on the
frontline of defending that fundamental natural right and will continue to do so as champions of freedom. and we invite neighborhood after neighborhood, family after family, individual defenders of freedom, to join us in that fight where we understand that there is no division in terms of the appreciation of that right on the basis of color or class or anything. that is your natural right. thank you. >> thank you, professor. i want to introduce to you bishop garland hunt, a governor appointee to georgia state pardon and paroles. and bishop, i believe you're going to give us a perspective on the community, when you deal
with the experiences of transitions of people back into communities with high crime. >> yes. well, i came into this -- the way i came into this, of course, my background was in law. i graduated from howard university. being from atlanta, georgia, that was the hub of the civil rights movement. so i watched what was taking place in terms of a young boy's death. and my heart sought change. as i came to an understanding of law and how things concerned justice, and as i came closer to the themes in my experiences of god, i started asking questions about what really is a good, fair approach to justice. so i went on later on and i ran for office. i didn't win that particular position. but the governor appointed me to the parole board for the state of georgia. what i didn't know about parole is that it's very interesting, as you look at each individual