tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN March 29, 2016 5:57pm-7:58pm EDT
to that? >> i was not in those meetings. [laughter] >> we were going to have unprecedented, the thing that was important to focus on was doing the right thing for the audience. we took into account what was important to audience. >> there are two other not universally needed not necessarily projects you have been working on but big areas with big policies implications behind them. one is the veteran's administration and the second is immigration and the whole green card system. and you guys have taken both of those on somebody described as really hairballs when we were in a washington meeting with you guys. can you talk about those because those are significant. >> i wish it was only those two,
by the way. [laughter] >> that was when we talked last july. you can add a new other agencies to the list now. va and dhs. you want me to do it? >> go for it. >> so va problem statement in a nutshell, we are creating disabled veterans at pace that we can't absorb in the rest of the system. we have been doing that for 10-12 years or so. you can probably guess what they are. and it's been overwhelming the rest of the system since then and backlog of disability claims at one point was 600,000 or so, that was that high-watermark was hit around march 2014, if i remember correctly. just a few months before we came on the scene. the delayed disability claims in the case of the va very often
mean a lapse in treatment which could be physical therapy for a new amputee. hearing losses is incredibly common and mental health issues are incredibly common. untreated posttraumatic stress and depression is not only a life-threatening situation for the veteran but around the veteran as well. this is, if you follow this part of the news, this was a lot of it for those years. also the appeals to the disability claims more efficient. we also need to get better at exchanging and doing the handoff during the department of defense when you separate from active duty and hand it over to the va as a customer, there's a scene
there where you medical records are supposed to leave the dod system and picked up by the va hospital network. that calls for something that sounds like medical record. that is largely done and still largely done. that mandate, the mandate for operatable it was several years old and was met so far by the dod taking their approximately 1-file box average paper records per veteran, hiring a contractor to scan them and sending that as a pdf to the va as image pdf. it's still mostly that way, by the way. we have made it somewhat better but there's still a long way to go. that is the nutshell of what there is to do in the va. we are in the middle of it.
>> they get to pick their own job titles kind of like silicon valley tradition. [laughter] >> i don't know if he picked it or not but matthew's handle within the va is leader if you're a star wars fan. sorry, go ahead. >> he's been a part of that va effort. you brought up immigration, the short version of that is the process by which you enter the united states on either immigrant visa or nonimmigrant visa.
with a lot of different bureaus who acted as if they never heard of each other when you interact with them you get something from one place and carry to the next government office and sometimes you have to carry a package in a sealed bag that you're not allowed to open and you have to pay fees and a half dozen different places in the process. it's a different amount so you might be able to use a credit card and have to create the pass each time. we came along and attached ourselves to an existing initiative at the agency called u.s. citizenship in the department of homeland security. we've accelerated some pieces of it and we did successfully put
online in the new form the human design form in the process which is the way you get a replacement green card if you lose yours. if you are a green card holder this is your piece of paper and documentation that gives the right to work as well as not be deported in the united states so being without it is a stressful condition to be in. it's in the order of a few weeks now after they launch a new thing and we started with that because it is a relatively simple process. it's a couple of forms but it's high volume that affects a lot of people. there's hundreds of thousands i think each year of that so quickly that is the va.
>> the immigration one is a fascinating example for a couple of reasons. there is no such thing as a new idea in the government because if you thought of it someone has already thought of that way before then so the idea of digitizing is it a new idea. it had been tried more than a decade before and had been underway for a very long time. we won't go through the number of billions that have been spent to digitize the system before then. as a taxpayer it hurts my soul but the point is that has been underway for over a decade and it was less than a few weeks about three months from when we were able to drop in a very tiny team less than five people and from when they showed up to when we were able to get the first form out the door.
what is fascinating about that that piece of what it means is that folks that are on the ground already working on this were also the people that fixed it which shows part of the strategy that we are looking at here. you can change the context and the environment and have different results. you have to strategically place the right pressure on the system and it can start shifting faster than you think which is why i love this example so much. >> we have been hearing other politicians use the phrase waste, fraud and abuse so i wondered for the longest time without would look like if it ever got uncovered and i don't want to be one to suggest that it's going on here at all but the story you've been talking about for the last hour or so are certainly stories in this day and age in 2016 waste not
for any intentional purposes or anything else it's just simply not functioning. >> hayley got at this a second ago in the beginning there we have a back to the very first question to think about what is the problem. the big part a big part of it is the normalization of failure by which i mean we have arrived at a stage where the status quo way of doing something is put out and wait for three or four months, look at the data to come back back, do the source selection and all that stuff and hire a huge business who does almost all its business with the government to do the plan that
you are used to come and spend seven years and a couple billion dollars because the effect of the government it's easier to spend a couple billion than a million and hire a few people because that is just absolutely true. all of us have dealt with it so all of these things, this is almost guaranteed not to succeed. there is a study in the sight of god says 94% of the government it efforts come significantly over budget or behind the schedule or functionality or all three of those things that's the outcome 94% of the time. >> and 40% of them never see the light of day. >> totally unsurprising outcome so this happens. but the normalization of that's what i mean is a nothing bad will happen to any of the people involved in the contracting
decisions which makes it the safest thing for them to do so when we say it is the riskiest way to do the project is the least risky from the perspective of the people of the government who are responding to a different set of incentives because of part of it doesn't work nothing will happen to you. what will get you in trouble if you try something new and dangerous if it does anything less than smashingly while then there will be a lot of attention on you and then all of the oversight and accountability mechanisms in the government accountability office and investigative arm of conduct investigations for the inspector general and inspector general and it will just be all bad so if we only did one thing we mostly talk about how it has shifted over the last year like it seemed a year ago we were
bringing in these new ways of approaching technology problems and new practices and knew this and that and we were all fancy and shiny and that is true but probably an even more important ingredient in a special recipe is pr to outsource at risk from the perspective of the agency. we are term limited appointments. nobody on the stage has in mind my own career security as a forefront and it's hopeless by the way like it is a bit of a misunderstanding to blame the government employees for putting their stability first, like everybody puts their career stability first.
having somebody else to blame that is a huge part of it. >> that it's more than but it's more than the career stability i would say i think you touched on it with a b. in v. and synthesizing of what success looks like it's just different so i don't necessarily know that it's about anita make sure i have a job in a year or ten years. i think that the definition of what winning is and i've done my job well is maybe not well aligned with taking what they perceive as risk and again we know it's continuing to do the status quo. >> it's this whole statistic mentioned earlier if it is 94% of all projects coming in late over budget and behind schedule
and 40% never even see the light of day that's the norm everyone is just working to the norm and it's part of what you are trying to change. i want to talk for a minute we have such great questions i want to get to those in the there are two other subjects i want to talk about before i do though. you are doing this with a relatively small team, 113 members of the service that span out across every agency in government may be more there is only 185 people in washington terms which you could fit them on the head of a pin but i want to talk about the kind of person that it takes to be on this team to do what you do. it can't be a good thing to walk in and say i am from silicon valley, i'm going to show you how to do things around here so what kind oferson is successful on your team? >> you raise a fantastic point
which is we are looking for actually we are not even looking for, they tend to find us come an incredible combination of skill sets such as and that anyone on our team can be the most technically competent at any given moment but also have such an ability to communicate well that they can also win over the hearts and minds in the room. we actually just had our first full year about a day or two ago where we had our online application available we launched at the state of the union last year so we now have the data into next year we had almost over 4500 people apply. and to give you a little bit of context it turns out it is way more competitive than harvard because we were looking for the best of the best and i can't tell you how incredibly thrilled i am to work with such a talented team because they are
phenomenal and we have this really interesting to collection across the industry everything from people who help set up the classes inside to the founding members to people who took the infrastructure to what it is now and it's this incredible collection of the smartest most genuine incredible people i could have ever imagined working with and they are inside of the government which is the mind blowing part and that is the differentiating factor between the folks on our team and any other team they are coming in to do this not because they get to put the white house on their business card or they make tons of money. if you look across the united states they are coming because they want to make a difference in the lives of americans and they want to work on things that
matter so those are the type of people we are looking for but in the beginning they tend to find us because if you are looking to have an impact, there is no better place to be working then right now in the united states federal government. >> we are really looking for the people that they are building the services for to win the hearts and minds of buckley really screen for that sense of mission driven and impact driven person. absolutely we are screening for the second skill set that almost more than anything is that side of it are you here for the right
reason because if you're not, once you hit that first law you will not want to hop over it or know what to do. you have to be willing to bash your head against the wall and keep going. >> coming from the private sector as an example of this in terms of the scale and the impact impact of what it means, i worked on something called shockwave which was a little while ago but was basically the advent of animation on the web. then i worked at digital so my codes and products have shipped to literally hundreds of millions of people and they've had an opportunity to be able to have an effect on the way people can see the media in different ways. nothing compares to what i'm doing now.
the ability to come if i could even just affect one person's life to help them go to college and make a better life for themselves this would be worth it and i'm getting the opportunity to affect millions of people's lives and it's just a scaled is enormous and different from anything i've done in the private sector. the >> you've got to be pretty good and confident in herself in the field of expertise because she would be in a lot of rooms he would be the only one and you will need to be convincing of how you do that and be very patient and resilient and ready
to be okay with it when you let people take credit for all the stuff that you've done. she mentioned that we are selective and that is true there is no correlation between how good people are at what they do and how good they think they are so please don't think that is for some elite engineer somewhere else to >> one more question. since he has had such a high-profile leading the effort
is this bipartisan, what sort of support as it's starting to get. >> in the midst of all of the political rhetoric, it's one of the most fantastic examples of a bipartisan agenda. in the process it is delivering the network for people making it easier to get the care and access to people who need it and we are making the government more effective at the same time which is honestly both parts of the different sides of the aisle
so we are getting tons of support and development that we are excited about, a couple weeks ago congress just came out with their budget which the plaintiff is we received almost the entire request from the predominantly republican hill which is a strong bipartisan endorsement and if you line up how we select our projects we have a criteria mostly focused on how many users are going to benefit from the surface providing a life changing impactful service and also what is the opportunity cost of not doing things differently. the gao which is the internal office that is independent and works closely with the hill they are almost exactly the same because it turns out the biggest problems that need to be solved
everyone agrees with because no one thinks that the veterans should be waiting longer to get access to their benefits or things that could be more expensive and work simply so it is an incredible coming together of both sides. >> the budget thing is super surprising by the way. it is inside baseball so we won't tell you the half-hour version of it i promise. but people that follow these things very closely were dumbfounded. not only were we a project asking congress for money, but our appropriation lands right inside of the white house and if there's one thing the congress doesn't want to add more money to come at the white house is by on the list anyway. so that is one of the surprising
outcomes. we go and talk to the appropriations committee and we bring up the power plants and make the sales pitch and say here is what we are here to do and please give us money. en we find out when the spending bill comes out like everybody else and we don't get any special insight access to the legislative process. >> for this is a good segue to the first audience question which is given that this is the president last year, what are the goals, can you talk about those? >> the big goals this year are to expand the services so that we can help with the agency
that's getting into the agency's they're also doing more experiments and the acquisition space and mentioned the market places and one of the things we are experimenting on we're experimenting on right now is micro- micro purchases. it's easy to purchase something on a credit card in the government that we have a spending limit up to $3,500 a. if you're a developer that has ever participated in something like that. then we picked tasks.
we've done it with two different tasks. the first time it was down to 1 dollar. i would have done this for free. the second time we tried to solve another one because obviously we want to be a business participating in a community. that didn't happen this time. all of the final date for between 250 in about $350 at the end of the day. it's about 18 lines within 24 hours. and we were really able to change the game and how we can
scale our efforts. somebody went in and actually fixed the thing that we had put out before it was over. >> it wasn't quite the way that you phrased the question but it turns out there is a presidential election this year and it is almost a guarantee. i know it is almost a guarantee that the next president and the next person in my job will not spend as much time together. unless this becomes front and center of the agenda again which could have been let's assume it doesn't so we've got to figure out how to if we assume for the moment what we are doing it for
preserving and how to create enough of our own reputation for the rest of the agencies are those that will be there in 2017 that we continue on into the next term. i started months ago and it will go all the way through the end. it can mean a lot of different things to people in washington. the place we are betting on is just flat out delivering enough stuff so that we are worth continuing. i don't actually mind. it's criticized as a weakness of the model we depend on the appropriation every year from congress and if they didn't want to fund its next chair or the year after that they don't have to. likewise it's on the executive
power on the top of the agencies what we try to do do in 2016 to make this worth continuing we shift some more stuff and i talked a little bit about the appeals process that we are looking at right now we are on the hook to produce a new system for social security disability claims and adjudication not unlike the process that you talked about the ongoing. we have to improve the refugee process and a new one i mentioned one of the newest things we are onto as you follow closely the white house talk about the executive actions on improving criminal background checks before you can buy a gun
to modernize the system as well so those are all things we need to show results on this year. >> one additional thing there are a lot of unknowns in 2017 and then in the near future so one thing that is exceedingly clear and everybody in the room knows technology is not going to become any less important to the government than it is today. it's only going to become more and more important and i think one of the incredible transformations happening right now is that is exceedingly clear as president or ceo of the country yes there is a background in policy that is ideally great to do the law and economics but there's another way and that is taxed. just like you can't run the company in the private sector without empowering the cto you can't do the same thing with the country whether it is the united states or in the world that trend is not going to change.
that's for sure. >> i have a question for you. >> is an important question. this is the first time that they heard of the college scorecard and so what are you doing to get the word out to everybody? the people that created a user account is something people could potentially benefit. >> absolutely. the targeted targeted audiences the underserved communities and we talk about the high school students is 50% and college today in the country that is 24-years-old and so it is really, really important so we built this product and i'm glad. >> time to figure out how to get that message out there and get the message to guidance
counselors. how do we actually continue partnering with third-party organizations and how do we get them and entice them to use the data. there is a lot more. we would do what i would call out one up but i'll reiterate both from a future perspective and more partly from a outreach perspective. >> part of the great part is you don't have to go to that website to benefit the student from opening up the data that lisa and her team did. that's the sort of the whole point. the state is now getting put into pushers where users currently are which is on different education websites. honestly not every person things are going to a.gov to get get help for things like this. we want to make that okay to push the information and data work people currently are instead of forcing them to come to us. >> to more questions from the audience and i have one final question.
what about pushback from the hundreds of thousands of contractors engaged in developing software the old way? you are so few in number and they are making a lot of money. >> those are facts. [laughter] >> as i mentioned, we are very trying to work within our community and enable and empower businesses and small businesses that's part of what the general services and so were taking on, all of the things that we are doing, all the things that we've mentioned trying to get new businesses in and doing business with the government for the first time, the -- you have to be registered in sam.gov, you have to be a registered business owner. these people are doing business with the government for
the first time. it's giving them a lens into this new experience. yes there stuff all over the country and specifically in d.c. trying to do this and making a lot of money. i think what we are doing and you have heard to say this in various ways, we are shipping code and software but at the end of the day we are shipping culture. we are trying to fundamentally change the way that these things can get done. so it can go faster, better, and cheaper. you can have all three, you don't have to pick to which is the old adage. when you show that that can be done with a group of people inside the government and you also show good faith that you want, that we understand fewer than 300 people people doing this. it is an 80 billion-dollar industry to do it business with the government. you cannot even see the.that we
are in that number. so we know we cannot do it ourselves. we have to be able to rely on the business community. and to and to rely on vendors out there. what we can do is to get people we are working with a new experience so they go through a design studio for the first time. they go through software development cycle for the first time and they come to expect that from the next people they work with. hopefully they look for those qualities in the next people they work with. the whole system starts to gradually change. >> that's a great answer. go ahead mike. >> we have talked this one through a few times and all of us have a slightly different take on what strategy actually is, that that is fine, everybody has their own ideas. but the first point i make is,
we do not have to change every project in the entire government, we don't have to hit that 84,000,000,000 dollars per year in it spending for this to be worth doing. five or ten important projects that were doing and i described a few tonight, if we only ever affected those i would feel feel like what we did was worth doing. that is .1. .2, yes there is a giant or miss industry which is going to continue, it will be mostly contractor driven because to bring all of that work inside the federal government would be a staggering expansion. hundreds of of thousands of more federal employees, like an agency, it would take an agency bigger than the virginia which is that the biggest agency to take this all inside the federal governments. we do not intend for that to happen. we are not making efforts for that to happen. i feel like i say this in every event and it never gets in the press or gets amplified. we are not here to kill that industry.
that industry can continue to exist. that's great, that's fine, i don't, i don't care if the exact same companies exist. we just need to fix the ecosystem so that competition is more healthy, so that we spend, we can still spend, the government, here's here's one thing i predict with hundred% confident is that the government is going to continue to spend money. [laughter] that is going to continue to happen. people still make make a lot of money. making a lot of money is not on the face of it, a bad bad thing. but we do need to -- it would be an improvement if either we continue to spend exactly the amount we do right now but the thing actually worked when we were done. like if we did not have that 40% that never saw the light of day.
if everything we bought actually worked, that would be an improvement even if we did not save a dime. if we didn't ever get anything to work any better but we saved money, that, that would also be an improvement. >> we absolutely don't want to alienate contractors, we can do this without them. but they do not want to build bad products either. they don't don't want to work this way either. that's i with these environments they would love to work with us what way they are working with their private sector clients. i don't know who else does waterfall except for us now. i'm sure the large contracting companies don't ask appreciate that. >> they submitted bids to some of the new experimental stuff we're doing with making competition more competitive.
they will adapt. but it is up to us to set the direction because we write the paid checks and rfps, and the contracts. >> the last question is about whether there is a role for nondevelopers in all of this. are you looking for people who run businesses, or who have more entrepreneurial business skills, maybe maybe not tech skills. i see you shaking your head #. >> yes, absolutely. we need an incredibly diverse range of skill sets because this work is incredibly hard. we need the best engineers in the country as well as the best project managers, designers, research, policy experts of people who are getting used to getting things done and heart environments. i guarantee there is no less hospitable environment than the government for getting stuff done. if it would also be bureaucracy hacking, so please apply. >> that is a real thing. >> the final question and maybe
a little personal. you talked about your shaping culture, not just services, shipping culture and having it affect you as a two-way street. so i want want to ask you as a final thought, how have you changed? has this experienced change you? what you think you will take away from it looking back on it? >> i think the honest it has changed me for the rest of my life and i still haven't learned all the ways you. my biggest fears that i will never be as satisfied working on a project again. because the impact of the federal government is so large and so meaningful people's lives , that i will probably spend the rest of my life on a quest that is this impactful once i leave here. >> for me, again i've only been
here eight months, having worked for large corporation and several large corporations before, the way government works and the bureaucracy and how things actually get done is not completely foreign to me. the thing that i learned that has struck me the most is that i knew when i was joining that my team members at u.s. digital service it would be super passionate, engaged, and excited about what we're doing but i did not know as an outsider as government is that when i showed up at the agency, i was blown away by the folks who are partner with there. they they show up every day, get out of bed, but because all they want to do is make the world a better place, make it better for students, make education easier to get and more equal across this country.
i kind of expected all of this resistance. you hear from the outside how bad government is and how hard it is to get anything done and it's all a bunch of bureaucrats, then you are on the ground and all anybody who is there wants to do is actually fix things. that's a great learning stance for me. >> i think for me you center the question around culture and that has been what has resonated the most. i was a designer building web services in the private sector and then mostly around and for government as i mentioned from the outside. i was from the design side with marketing and sales at the end of my stint until i got to the government. in preaching design for a long
time, focus on the user, think about user needs before stakeholder needs. the thing thing that has stuck with me because my job from the beginning has not necessarily been delivering product but has been building this team and delivering the team. it is incredible to me what you can do when you put your focus on people. the number of people that when you ask them what is the best thing about it, across the board the first thing out of their mouth is of the people. like i said, will you scream for that, when you put a focus on people, on diversity, people, on diversity, on really wanting to hear from everybody it is really incredible what that team can do. that change is how i approach everything from now on. >> i had the most time to prepare.
[laughter] and yet i feel like i'm totally unready to answer this question. i will acknowledge first because i feel it's important on behalf of all people that work for us to acknowledge that yes, none of our lives are ever going to be the same. a good number people are going to come and have come and done a limited time toward duty just like we told them in the video that was up there. they have gone back to something resembling normalcy. i most likely not. i can see that, i have no idea what is going to become of any of us. we talked about this not because were on stage in front of people, we have no idea what's going to become of us in a year or so. the human cost of doing this is high. the sacrifice that people make to do this kind of work is high. going into that and some depth
to but i won't to spare you. i've become aware of that particular job that i do which is be in a backstop to a lot of those people who come to work in the government turns out to be tougher, you mentioned lever a minute ago he has a speech that he wants to do about there is no possible informed consent here because it does not matter. what happens when we recruit and i to people one-on-one before they, and i say i have to tell you how hard it's going to be in your not going to believe me a new even if you do your going to imagine the hardest thing and it's gonna be harder than what you imagine. so after you get here you can have hard moments of a work through that. since your question is how has that changed you, my my frame of reference has changed a lot where a year ago if you set how are you going to fix the government, and i say design process and whatever else is
going to be great, technology focused outcome i don't i don't think about that hardly at all anymore. what i think about is just the problems of the managing enormous organizations of people where communication becomes really difficult and coordination becomes difficult. it's not sufficient that they want to get something really good done, they do all believe in the way that they want to make service better for veterans as lisa said. that's one of of the things to come to terms with fast. that's what makes these first few weeks hard. you realize all these people on the same thing you do and why is it still so hard. were building this organization ourselves, were couple hundred people now which isn't enough to have our own organizational dynamics. i have to face the fact that we are not magically different from the people that are working in the government. all of the same incentives that make it difficult to run a group and reach consensus, those apply to us too.
it's likely that whatever i go to do after this, which i have no idea what it is, i'll probably be thinking of those types of problems honestly. >> can i add one thing? the other thing that you have been talking about that strikes me is this is also been a tremendous opportunity to have a platform. to have a a platform to talk about building diverse teams. i think we have taken on ownership of actually trying to build that out and prove that it is possible and to be representative of the people that we're trying to serve. more importantly, we understand and know that we developed better products we will ship better things only have diversity of opinion and voices. we really try to showcase that and especially in the tech industry and the elite folks that we are trying to recruit.
the more we can actually showcase that this is possible, that that is possible to build a team like this, as a fact it's a better team because of its diversity, i think that's an important take away [applause]. >> i feel like we have rare and wonderful tonight. in the work that you are doing and you as individuals. thank you for spending time with us in being revolutionaries revolutionaries tonight. thank you so much. [applause]. [inaudible conversation] >> this week on c-span, we are featuring programs on the increase of drug abuse in america.
the situation of the current supreme court vacancy. when -- including comments from president obama and presidential candidate ted cruz. >> it is certainly not going to be washington d.c. that steps in and solves these problems. it's going to be friends and family, churches, charities, loved ones, treatment centers, people working to help those who are struggling to overcome their addiction. drug addiction is is a disease. >> i made this a priority for my it administration. we are not new to this. in 2010 we released our first drug controls strategy. we
followed that up in 2011 with a drug abuse prescription plan. where in permitting the plans, partnering with plans, partnering with communities to prevent drug use, reduce overdose tuffs, and help people get treatment. >> there's it six p.m., with an apparent impasse between democrats, the white house, and republicans, over the next up in court justice we look at what today's leaders have said in the past concerning the nominating and confirmation process of individuals to the supreme court. >> in my view, confirmation hearing no matter how long, hopeful, how people, how thorough can alone provide a sufficient basis for determining if a nominee merits a seat on our supreme court's. >> a thoughtful senator should realize that any benefit of a barring an ideological opponent from the court are not likely to outweigh the damage done to the courts institutional standard. ideological opposition to a
nominee from one end of the political spectrum is likely to help generate similar opposition to later nominations from the opposite 10. >> those are some of the programs featured this week on c-span. >> next, wall street investor stanley explains why the u.s. is giving more more of the economic pie to seniors at the expense of america's youth. from the university of california at berkeley, this is is a bit more than one hour. [inaudible]
>> welcome everybody. it is great to be here. i am henry brady, dean of the golden school of public public policy. it is wonderful to see a full house for this wonderful event tonight. i want to introduce our two panelist, actually will start with a short talk and outline the issues with respect to youth in america today. then we'll turn to a discussion with geoffrey canada and that will have it open to your questions. there should be cars out there that you can get, i think people will be circulating with cards and collecting cards. those will be brought to me and i will choose questions from them to ask our guest. so stanley founded duquesne capital in 1981 and closed it around 2010. during that time he did very well and had a storied career on
wall street for his successes with his organization. he also also at one time worked with george and helped him amass substantial amount of wealth as well. stanley is the guy who knows a lot about them finance. part of what we are going to talk about tonight's finance budgets and issues of the future. part of what investing is about is thinking about the future. what is future. what is going to happen in the future. so he's concerned, deeply and profoundly about the future of young people in america. you'll. you'll see when he talks exactly the degree to which he is concerned about the investments we are not making in young people and how their crowded out by other investments we do make. geoffrey canada is an educator, social activist, and founder of the harlem children's zone which he started in 1990. the harlem children's zone was designed to try to help
children, young people in harlem to get to college, graduate, and get good jobs. it's an innovative, comprehensive, and intriguing approach. it seems to be successful. i don't need to be deprecated by saying that. it just it takes a while to evaluate some of these programs. many people think this is a model of what we should be doing elsewhere. in fact our president thinks that having having put in the budget some proposals and programs that are trying to replicate what has been done in the harlem children's zone. so the connection between the two of them is too full. they they both graduated from golden college. the other connection is over the years stanley has helped raise money for the harlem children's
zone and jeffrey has made it the success it has become. don't forget the no notecards if you have questions. i will turn to stan who has a presentation to outline the issues of young people in america. welcome. [applause]. you mention that jeff and i were at bowdoin college together in the early 70s, as the children of the 60s we used to think of protests, changes in the world, but even back then i have never been here but berkeley california was always the larger-than-life institution where movement started.
[applause]. it is interesting, here a lot today about how millennial's do not think the way children of the 60s thought and they're not into movements or protests, but i look at a couple of examples and i could not disagree more. when i think about how much this generation moves the needle a gay-rights and what you have accomplished, i think it is ridiculous to suggest that this generation has not been involved in political activism with results. i will say the same thing about this generation in terms of the environment and climate change, i look at the movement that has been made in washington in the last ten years and i think it is directly result of this generations activities and
focus. i guess i'm somewhat puzzled by the fact however that there is another thing that your generation has not focused on and the reason i am puzzled is a , i think it is a vitally important to your future but also to the future of the country, it affects you directly. dean brady said i'm going to give a presentation, actually i think we are going to have a conversation about the topic. we just thought maybe i would maybe i would throw six or seven slides appeared to get everybody warmed up with regards to this topic. if you look at the chart, can everybody see this chart? we don't need to dim the lights do we? the line in red, its federal payments to individuals or transfer payments. what you you see is back in the early 60s that used to be 20% of all federal government outlays.
it is currently 67%. so over the years we have gone from an economy that used to have transfer payments of 20% of the federal budget to 67 percent. put that put that in perspective, back in the early 60s medicare and medicaid combined were .1% of gdp, social security was 2.6% of gdp, and discretionary funding was 11 and a half% of gdp. today, medicare and medicaid is a 5.6% of gdp, social security is 4.9% of gdp and discretionary expenditures have shown to 6.5% 5% of gdp. why is that important? because a transfer payments are really consumption and you don't get that much return on your investment. i want to highlight the blue line. back in the 60s investments actually used to be higher than
transfer payments. they were 32 and they have gone down to 15. now for the republicans in the audience, if if there are any in berkeley, california, i want to remind you that government spending can be a lot more effective than what some of you have been putting out during the press. what did you get for this blue line? you got the internet, you got you got gps, you got interstate highway system, and we got nih grants that have moved the needle dramatically on cancer and other diseases. what's been been going on now for the better part of 50 years is the amount of money we're spending on transfer payments primarily to seniors has been crowding out investments in our future. it is not just investments and things like that brought us the
internet and gps, it is better at the expense of children. this chart is pretty remarkable. what you are looking at is the per capita spending on children and on the elderly as a percentage of the average worker salary per capita. what you are will see is in 2011 which 11 which is the last year i have good data on, 56 cents out of every dollar that american worker made went toward expenditures on the elderly, pretty much transfer payment that i showed earlier. only 8 cents went on our children. so just as they had been crowding out other investments, that greater allotment we have been making toward payments for things like medicare, medicaid for the elderly, we also have medicaid for children but as you can see it does not move the needle much. social security has been at the expense of money we might be spending on our younger generation.
for some reason, this is kind of sad but i will work around it, the chart you are supposed to be seen is the united states poverty rates by age group. what you see and read, back then president johnson declared a warm poverty. since then the poverty rate for seniors is 30% to nine percent. i think we can all agree that is a wonderful accomplishment. there's nothing worse than thinking of an elderly person who is poor and cannot make it in society and all that it encompasses. but the interesting thing is during that same time. the poverty rate for children, maybe maybe we have it on another -- how clever when
you're over 60 you don't know how to use technology laughmac. the poverty rate for children has actually been an uptrend. it is actually pretty much flat to up a but believe it or not we have made no progress in the last 40 years even though the war on poverty has been declared a success. it has all been for the elderly and effective for children that poverty rate has not dropped at all. it is pretty amazing. we now have a child poverty rate in this country of 24 percent. think about that. almost that. almost one in four of every child in america grows up under the poverty level. just to show you how horrific that is, what we have done here is taken the 35 leading economic countries in the world and here is the united states. we ranked 34th with our 23% poverty rate for children. the only country we beat out is romania. we are actually worse than latvia and the other 33 countries. so here we are the united states with all of this wealth, with all of the things we have in we
have the second highest child poverty rate, one of four children in america are growing up in poverty. we have this fancy thing again now, okay. i showed you on the first chart how much we have been spending on our seniors and on transfer payments relative to investment and the second chart relative to children. look at what that 40 - 50 years of spending more and more and giving more pie to the elderly has resulted inches this is a little complicated but i think i can deal with it here. what you are looking at here is if you take the average net worth of age groups in 1983 versus their average net worth in 2010 and in constant dollars. for the the first time in the history of america we have a generation now that their net worth in 2010 was actually less
than their net worth in 1983. that is your 29 - 37-year-old group. so 29-year-old in 2010 in constant dollars is worth less then a 29-year-old was in 1983. but look at the elderly, with the was in 1983. but look at the elderly, with the most extreme case being 74 and over. not only is their net worth not less than it was in 1983, it is 150% more. as you can see for all the elderly their net worth has gone up dramatically. again a result of the first chart as we continue to spend more and more on the elderly at the expense of the rest of our society. so far i have only talked about the size of the economic pie. more more of that pie, i'm sorry the proportion of how that pie is split up more and more has gone to the elderly. the problem going forward is there is about to be a lot more
of the elderly and a lot less of the working to support the elderly. back in 1957 we had a birth rate in the country of 3.72 one. we had no more babies born in 1957 then 100 million less people than we have today. it is pretty incredible when you think about it. we have -- people in the country and in the last few years we've never had as many babies born is a 1957. this is what you know as of the baby boom after soldiers came back from world war ii. 19471947-1967, they did their business with their wives, a lot of babies were created, we had a baby boom. for those of you who can add, 1947 people plus 65 equals 2012.
so in 2012, that baby boom for the next 20 years becomes a gray boom. let me put it in stark. let me put it in stark terms, for the next 16 years every day 11,000 people are going to turn seniors. work creating 11000 seniors every day for the next 16 years. we are only creating 2001 adult workers per day to support those seniors. what you have is over the next 25 years the people that are actually working are going to grow by 17% but the elderly, because of the gray boom are going to grow 102%. >> ..
>> >> then they are living a lot longer end of the longer they live the more they spend each year with financial problems. i used to put up a chart but it is so horrifying thought i would talk about it if you take what we promised our seniors so security and medicare projections and medicaid projections what we promised them to be subjected you get a number that we call the gap.
how many people a 65 or older but don't want to admit it? okay. [laughter] if you are 65 and over i assume you'll get your social security check next month. according to the federal government that probably will not happen they don't account for the fact anyone over 65 will get any payments going forward. that is in the liability of their balance sheets nobody does their accounting that way that double accounting the payment that the seniors will get doesn't exist and if they did to take that present value of the gap from the university of massachusetts the present value would make our current
data to of a $5 trillion item of that is science but it is another $100 trillion. so let me wrap this up. if you look at what we promised seniors there is not going to be any money left over. people might think i am against medicare and social security. and i love medicare but the problem is i love them so much by what the younger people to get them in 40 or 50 years also. this is putting out that generational transfers are
-- transfer. and i know 30 or 40 years seems like a long way down the road. but i take part in your generation. with another ticking time bomb and hoping we can get a movement started thank you. we will have our conversation now. [applause] >> that was great and sets the stage and also for the phrase live long and prosper. it looks like some people still and others may not but
and also if they have serious investment in this small light of anything but a bunch of people did not believe that was true. and that is important. for people to understand and then through high school and college and graduating college and then to see the piece of the american dream. and i was the year ahead of them in school but and for
and i learned a funny lesson the you have to understand no one did anything about it. the we have invested all the time because my generation quite honestly doesn't care 40 years from now. so all this has come together for me. to break the generational poverty but to know what has happened to these kids but
when you looked at something and not only be poisoned in front of our eyes but nobody doing anything about it and act like we can find the resources. by the way not even the worst place in michigan there are other communities that are even worse. how could that be? it is going on all over the country. to say that they don't have the resources that you were talking about but i think it is disgraceful not to put that investment into our
kids. >> let's just talk for a moment the way that we may be under investing right now. so what kind of areas are we talking about? where else? >> so if you start thinking about educational support for what is happening ion the first one to argue that many is not the answer i will also say it just takes money to educate but it does take money to educate kids when you think about food scarcity and kids growing up
with expose environment with asthma and i think that social-service says one of the things is becoming very clear to have lots of symptoms of mental health problems in this used to frustrate me when there is a shooting in the upper middle-class the all talk about how men when -- mental-health services there are shootings every day and we do nothing. for any of those kids to grow up under that stress with water to years of
violence for what happens decades after words at least as a soldier you can come back home. what does that do and why are we giving any mental health services? youth employment is an area what disturbs me the most that we get a lot of kids to stick with our program because we have sports and what i would call high engagement activities for young people and we provide that to kids. that is seen as a luxury that we cannot afford it is
another area to master under investment. >> i just amplify the comment followed forget as the sequester was unfolding both sides of the eye and we will not balance the budget on the back of the seniors so they cut infrastructure. with bridges and roads we have been on sloan-kettering for 25 years we didn't know what causes cancer until about six years ago and how it happened massive breakthroughs with genetically sequence drugs so now we have agreements cut at sloan-kettering to do cancer research.
so much crowding out. but hillary talk about medicaid for children in the effects of toxic kids you see that they're getting $0.8 the elderly getting $0.56. so just tell little bit of the pie because frankly to invest in the five were six or three year-old the payoff is bigger than the 85 year-old library feel differently in 22 years. [laughter] so those are the main issues i would highlight. >> so the under investment
to borrow huge amounts of money in there is no guarantee you will earn enough money to pay back? so some of the think they should not get a college education. my theory is maybe it shouldn't be so expensive for of ported to go to school. [applause] that is a challenge. and to be at the top of the priority list. so there were schools you could go to the you could afford when i was in college city college was freed not one dime did you have to pay because there was the idea
that education was the great equalizer and wealth should not determine if you had a shot education and that is a challenge right now and a lot of kids are thinking i cannot afford college or the loans and that isn't the kind of country that we believe you should have especially for our grandchildren. >> why can't we expand instead of trying to carve up or carve out what we have in place? so what you are proposing is the young people or something else going on? >> if you cut investments and put money into expenditures the economic
pile will shrink over long-term and immediate terms of the first thing is the best in our kids and productive things and not pay people like me into a half years social security checks it is ridiculous i now want to get into my it is with expanding an economy but there is no question sample size of the aisle would agree if you keep spending money on transfer payments with consumption and education and you cut investing in your infrastructure your id economic growth will be slower. >> sieur proposing everybody will be better off. >> it is but it is about growing our economy for the long term to make it more
productive. >> tell us what you see with individuals and what the end -- the results are pro. those to care about the research is probably the most definitive. so when stan and i began this and i was trying to raise money you also give to berkeley but i will show you the charts of the in part -- incarceration rate and to show you what is happening.
and the way they calculated to the harlem children's own looks nefarious. that is going on all over america. to spend huge amounts of money in here is a number to keep in mind. in the more realistic estimates 12,000 people in new york city so when i think about what we have been doing with the unemployment sky-high for
emergency room to go on and on. but right now our college graduation rate is not just higher than blacks but higher than whites right now and the idea is if you really want to fight injured generational poverty to be given a shot. it is it's only the education but the incarceration in one of the programs in the nation selling each one of these indicators just trying to take out the bottom to get
the kids back to have an opportunity to be citizens. [applause] >> so what else do we do to make sure they are investing in the future? and how do we get to a situation where so much spending goes toward the elderly? what are the political issues to be overcome? >> it started with very good intentions. i saw the chart in the mid-60s when they spent nothing and those were great programs. social security is a great program but to get into the raw politics, an organization called aarp i
started getting notices when i was 50. i cannot wait until i am 65. it is an unbelievably strong lobby. the elderly vote. more importantly the young don't go. and for whatever reason they have not focused on this issue but it is directly affecting there pocketbook focusing 20 or 30 years out. and then the politicians cater to it. >> there is a belief of investments made they
believe with the war on poverty and in a lot of the researchers are coming out but what they have demonstrated is you do get a return. sometimes it takes longer to see but when i go on capitol hill if you really wanted to see the government work go to capitol hill. they are thinking they will give some money. i am not kidding about that. the challenges honestly i don't believe with the
at the very beginning and she came to harlem today you would not have a clue what i'm talking about but we have pictures that we have to show people what the community looks like. it looked like some bombed out capitol happened and people have this belief that children are growing up there and they are used to it. you don't get used to that. would you rather be here or would you rather be in that nice place? it's not like kids don't know they are growing up in a place where kids don't make it out of
those places, so i was speaking to a young man, i don't know if you still here but he was talking about growing up in an environment and how it was just normal for kids to go out and get involved in hustling. hustling was different but it's all the same stuff, doing something illegal to make enough money. not that you can get richer retire but enough money that you can take care of necessities and maybe tomorrow. when that becomes the culture in a place that that's what the expectation as it goes with a lowered believe that you're going to live through so people who are 14 and 15 and believe they're probably not going to see 20 they do a lot more risky kinds of things than kids who think they have a future. it's much easier for girls to not care if i get pregnant or not. they don't care if they the future there's nothing waiting to get out of this place.
this fear is infectious. i got it and you come in and after a while guess what i keep telling you why. these places people give them that suggest this is one of those places you don't get out of 10 harlem certainly was one of those places. this is what we learned. hope is also infectious. when people began to see, first of all said they we were going to change the condition. do you know how many different entities have come into harlem saying we are going to change in everybody's eyes roll. yeah you are going to change things. when people began to see the physical changes and begin to understand this thing was happening at first we have to convince people to work with us and then people came to us and said hey and you come on my block and help us with this? growing up in having a belief. i will give you one last example. harlem was the kind of place
where kids ended up at a place like this they might get on the front page of "time" magazine. this big story kit makes it out of the fed in sophia asked somebody back when we started did you know anyone going to college they would probably say i'll call i think there was this girl 117th street. you would have to be a genius to go to college. we have over 940 kids in college right now. when they come home which they are all coming home for spring break a of place that you have 900 kids from your committee in college and they would be like using college? [applause] is what changes what the norm is. if the norm is no goals then you say why would i think i could go? at the norm is i know i could go
to college if using college. and that is real. when that becomes the norm young people have a different sense of what it means to be hopeful because even if they are trapped right now or if you are in the house or you have mental health issues and maybe your brothers in jail, you see a path out of this that doesn't involve you risking your life for risking imprisonment because you see examples of it. there's hope right here and she has hope. that kind of sounds of opportunity i think is what has made america great and in these places we have to bring that sense back to these communities. >> let's just talk about a few things that some people have mentioned here. some presidential candidates tell us the issue here is immigration and if we just stopped immigration we would solve the problem. how do you think about immigration? is immigration a problem for american?
is a solution for american? how do we think about it? >> all of us are the product of immigration. it may have been this generation. with regard to the specific and generation immigration is a huge help because you get more economic growth and you get more to pay for the older people. this is the way the system works when you pay a payroll tax if you are working it's not going to you, this is not a pay as you go system. you are paying for someone who worked 40 years ago so it's a minor point but immigration with regard to this issue if they help not a herd. immigration in general this country was built on immigration i don't really understand, there is not a candidate out there, somebody in their family immigrated. it's just ridiculous. [applause]
>> you see this differently in new york, right? you just see the sort of energy, the economic energy that all of the immigrants bring into the city. i don't think anybody says that's a bad thing we see going on in folks are trying to figure out what their niche is to climb the american dream. i think when you look at countries that have failed totally to bring in new people into their communities you think about japan than what's happening as the group grows older and they're not able to sustain the populace. you have got a problem. this thing really has consequences and i think right now immigrants are a scapegoat for the fact that we have had a problem growing and sustaining our middle-class in america. that is not an immigration
problem. it is a real problem and i think the easy ways to find a scapegoat and say they are the reason that this is happening as if we stopped all of them from coming in suddenly we would have all of these jobs appearing back. i just think this is them one of the more horrid kinds of conversations that we have had in this country in quite a while it reminds me of a time when you know it was okay to villainize african-americans or anyone who grew up in the 60s, no one has said how disparaging people were at that group. that sounds a lot like this to me and i think it's a real problem that we have not addressed. >> here's another solution, just with the on capital gains increased access to capital
capital gains and we will have on the money to solve the problem, true or false? >> i happen to think they should normalize capital gains and dividends and it will bring some money so i think it will be helpful but it's just a pittance in terms of solving the problem. the funny thing about capital gains tying into this issue is the average 60-year-old has five times the net worth of the average 30-year-old so taxing old people and rich people at a lower rate than the 30-year-old plumber is a direct transfer of wealth, again from the young to the old. i don't think that is why it was intended but i've invested in businesses for the better part of 40 years. i started a business and this idea that somebody sitting around collecting dividends and clipping coupons as some kind of
great job creator relative to some guy out there working i think is a joke so you are talking to somebody thinks they should raise or normalize capital gains and not give them preferential treatment that it will solve the problem. it will give you some money but it will not solve the problem. >> that's one of the complexities here, the magnitude of the amount of money we are talking about here. >> talk about the defense budget. the defense budget is $700 billion. it's a lot of money and i don't even think that's equal to three years of the growth of entitlements coming up. like if you took defense spending to zero you would make up for three years of the upcoming growth in entitlements so again should we have a defense budget greater than the 18 countries in the world combined?
that's what people to just those? probably not. probably could find a way to cut the defense budget. those charts i showed up their defense used to be 6% of gdp. it's going to be a half a% of gdp. it has come down a lot. again you could have a little defense spending but these are just tiny snippets compared to the big problems. you want to get the big problems you are going to have to means test social security. you will have to means test medicare and since they have arctic gotten so so much of the piatt would have a problem with -- it's not like they haven't already increased the share dramatically and five and 7-year-olds are suffering because we couldn't go without money on their future. >> a question for probably students. how do we start a movement here? >> that's why they are here. that's their job.
>> what are the levers here? what should we focus on? hatami gets young people to understand it and how can we avoid a war of all against all? we don't want to end up with a war against people against seniors. >> absolutely not be cool. first of all you start voting. >> start voting young people. [applause] this be what i would make this issue a priority. you know i talk to young people, i have daughters in their early 20s. i was thrilled when marriage went through for a couple of reasons. a about it was great a b i thought they could move on to another issue now that problem was solved. so i got a twofer when that happened but if you look at the charts i put up there and you are willing to think about your future this is a big deal and one thing i know about young people in this country would they show in force and they vote on an issue and they are loud
about it like they were on and might they have been on climate the politicians eventually listen but they have got to vote or the politicians won't give a dam. >> living rates among young people are about half of the voting rates of those 65 and older so young people are simply not voting. politicians are not stupid. they know who votes and they are going to focus on the concerns and needs of those who vote. it's that simple. >> i don't want to put this as young versus old, i really don't one of the things i want to do is talk about future seniors and seniors. one of the things i want to do is to preserve these programs so they are viable for our young people when they are 65. >> so2 and let's talk more about the harlem children's zone. what would you like to see if you had a way of expanding it around the country? what do we need in our cities
along the lines of what you're pioneered? >> the biggest challenge, when president obama decided to replicate our work and if you look at his original announcement before he was president he talked about putting billions of dollars which was a very modest sum. if you look at what he was able to actually get through congress it was relatively small and much less than any of us thought was actually sufficient to get the job done. you know i think the big lifts moving forward is to do a couple of things. one, we are doing good work at the harlem children's zone but there are other folks around the country that are doing good work also and we need to begin to celebrate that work because they think one of the real challenges , they said it
couldn't be done. you couldn't go in and eliminates generational poverty in an area and get kids into college in significant numbers in the people begin to say okay after we had everything you can do it but you are the only one that can do it which is absolutely not true. this idea that we need to do not a minor investment but to put real dollars in their i thank is really worth fighting for. there are folks who are continuing to get the evidence that these kinds of programs matter and we were talking with some of those folks today. i would love to say politicians will look at the evidence as they book a great, thank you very much. i will tell you this issue handstand has certainly been a major player. i will tell you what i learned from the guy i used to work for.
george is very much on the left wing of the democratic already. george is left and when governor pataki was a governor i have been trying to convince that the democrats and republicans to do some investments in youth development and to really look at the mandatory minimum sentences before all this stuff came up about incarceration rates and all this other stuff. i was an organizer and activist and people knew me and i was yelling and marching and doing all that stuff and we got nothing. george called for a meeting with pataki which was at george's office and remember george is a democrat in pataki is a republican. i am in the meeting. the meeting is at george's office. first of all george shows up to the meeting 15 minutes late.
i was like how is this going to work? doesn't apologize and doesn't even say sorry, just sits down and says i want three things. pataki gives them two out of the three. not because they shared any political beliefs. simply because pataki thought it's probably not a good idea to upset the billionaire so i'm just going to do -- power madness and here i am the activist yelling, screaming, marching. how do you figure out what the power levels are to move -- power levers to move public policy. i have been thinking right now we have a real crisis in this country. you see it in the electorate. i think the establishment didn't realize they had a crisis but people started realizing they had a crisis. what i firmly believe is that
there will be an opportunity to talk to folks who would never listen to you before and say there is an answer to what is making everybody's got angry out there and we have the research to back up by this would be a good clue clandestine and by the way it's going to cost some money to get this stuff done. until we can get folks to realize there is money in that budget, that we could free up and do some of this stuff i think we will continue with scarcity. nothing could be further from the truth. this is really a matter of whether or not we are willing to make investment. i'm kind of a foolish optimist in the midst of all of this but i think there's going to be an opportunity to have some these conversations and this time we have got a lot more evidence, real scientific evidence of what works and we have before. >> that's a heck of a met in bonn. thank you and we appreciated
given the presidential campaigns where we are all watching right now. it is wanted and by saying these are two remarkable people and i feel honored that they came to be with us to tell us what they are thinking about. think what is quite remarkable if they come from quite different places and quite different things in their lives yet they have come together with the concerns for an issue. they think it's wonderful and it's indicative of the kind of creativity that exists in america to solve problems and i think the harlem children's zone is solving problems and i hope that we can work here at berkeley and around the country to solve the issues we discussed today with respect to the future of investment in young people to make sure that we. a future of them that is worthy for them and america. so thank you for coming. thank you so much geoffrey
[inaudible conversations] >> the media teaches us that democrats and republicans are supposed to be at odds with each other -- with each other and people need to recognize that we need to be respectful towards each other and we need to understand as senators are respectful towards each other and that will be more conducive to getting real policy done instead of acrimony and the trail. cement the truth is these people we see on television on c-span are real people. when we saw president obama perhaps the most that stood out to me is he was tired.
he's a real person dealing with real thing so i thought that was perhaps the most interesting. >> "washington post" journalist jonathan capehart came to talk to us and i really loved the insight he gave us about being kind of the outside source, reporting back to us and the electorate about what's going on in our government. ruth bader ginsburg was the most inspirational person that we have met this week. she has been one of my idols for a long time. i either want to be in the legal profession or possibly a senator. >> understand the need for bipartisanship at times but they
also think it's important politicians go to washington were good of their state capitols with their eyes on the goal and they are determined to meet that goal instead of sacrificing it in a way of bipartisanship or were never does. >> we need to have constructive talk in respecting all americans to matter what their background of making this country more respectful place where people feel welcome to give their opinions. >> republican senator mark kirk at the one i met with judge merrick garland president obama's nominee to the supreme court that he's supreme court that he suffers are public and to meet with judge garland and calls on gop colleagues to be quote open-minded and rational.
>> senator kirk what is your leadership style and allowing the process to move forward? >> we should do her job and make sure i -- [inaudible] part of my job is providing my own constituents from lincoln park to make sure we can talk about the key issues which i feel are important. >> i want to thank judge garland for being here. we are going to go for a couple of quick questions. >> thank you. my question is do you think your stance has been different from his on the beginning to do you think in any way shape or form this could influence some of your republican colleagues in what would be needed to get that? >> we need rational adult open-minded consideration of the constitutional process which judge garland has been dominated
by the -- and to fill a vacancy which we know exists on the court. we need open-minded rational responsible people to keep an open mind. >> are they not open-minded and rational some of your republican colleagues? [inaudible] >> you have mentioned that you want your senate colleagues to man up. what specifically do you want leader mcconnell to do? >> i think it shouldn't be just for nothing, that we should have a longer discussion about the key issues before the court. when you're a magna cum laude and judge garland's mind which i've been told it's very -- the
key issues at the time they were the key issues for me is the statute as judge garland being a chicago lander we have had 32 shootings in chicago this easter weekend and for me i want to rico two -- so it's not the headquarters for murder capital. >> do you believe that you will get the confirmation? >> thank you very much. we are going to wrap it up and go out front. >> i am doing it by being the first, i