tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 14, 2016 7:00pm-12:01am EDT
and the way institutions operate is really concentrated among the disinherited. the last chart i want to show you here is the social distance, the cultural distance thing that james mentioned and i may be able to do this better if i can see what you see. what we have here on the left hand side are the disinherited, the disadvantaged in the middle and the social elite on the right hand side. at the bottom are the groups that each of these three groups feel they share beliefs and values with. that was the question that drove this graphic. so, on the left hand side, you see that the disinherited feel they share the beliefs and values of white americans, completely. that's true across the board. these are subgroups within the
whites and american society. but, if you look at some of the other changes, you have conservative christians there right alongside white americans on the left hand side as sharing the beliefs and values of the disinherited. if you go to the far right, look at what happens to conservative christians. they are, with the exception of the wealthiest 10% of americans, they are the group that the social elite feel least connection with, least affinity for culturally. on the left hand side, you have gays and lesbians among the disinherited, muslim or islamic americans and nonreligious people as being groups that they don't make sense to them. they don't understand them. it feels like they don't share the beliefs and values of those groups at all. coming to the right hand side,
again, you see gays and lesbians and nonreligious people are two groups that the social elite feel very much in common with. they feel like they share the beliefs and values of those groups and it's interesting that african-americans and hispanic americans are in the same general sphere, same general level across all three groups. it's also interesting, there's one other contrast here that jumps out. that is the cultural elite, which along with the wealthiest americans are seen as being very culturally distant by the disinherited and the disadvantaged. the cultural elite is a phrase that feels more familiar for the social elite and that they understand that group of people. so, this was -- this was an attempt to unpack that second
fault line that james talked about and we are still in process on much of this. >> couple of concluding thoughts, then turn it over to nancy and tom. we began this afternoon by talking about how unusual this election is and, again, it seems so extraordinary. day by day, week by week, we hear new things that are so unfamiliar compared to previous presidential elections. but the findings of this survey tell a story that is probably more about continuity than change. the continuity the survey reveals are common place at this
point. the fault line between the electorate and the political establishment and what scholars called the legit maization crisis continues. as far as we can tell, it's hardening. many americans are more set in their view that government cannot be trusted that its leaders and leadership class, more broadly, are incompetent, craven and self-interested. that as citizens, they personally have little influence over the powerful institutions or circumstances. they have -- that shape their lives. the credibility of the mainstream political establishment is mission governing authority and its leaders has taken a pounding over many years. after a half century of polling, polling that was initiated by
the gallop organization in the 1950s and 1960s. one can say with certainty the confidence americans have with their leaders and governing institutions of american democracy suffered blows that will continue to have lasting effects. what is the fault line within the electorate? whatever else the cultural war of the last four decades contributed to the legit crisis. what was seen as reasonable and justifiable governance by one side was viewed as a rational and indefensible by the other and vice versa. back and forth it went in political discourse that was less about persuasion than overstatement and hyperbole. the cycle repeated itself over decades with great predictability and will continue in the future as the lines of cultural conflict evolve in the
ways we talked about it. it will also likely do so, regardless of what party is in power and who holds the presidency. i would also like to note, following the work of robert put numb and others, in the midst of all of this, there's a weakening of the institutions directly or indirectly charged with personal character and political formation. schools, youth organizations, churches and other institutions of faith and local, political parties. for many reasons not of their own making, these institutions have struggled to cultivate the shared civic sensibilities and virtues at the heart of citizen zip. in the process, the shared civic dispositions, codes of civility, civic realism and idealism that underwrote and therefore framed political disagreement have not been replenished.
it's true that the internet and social media filled some of the gaps, offering a kind of political community along with the voice for many who were voiceless. but, it is a demon strous -- with little more than virtual solidarity. all of this is the story of continuity. but there's something new here. what is new is a consequence of the conditions long in development. this is a reflection that jay mentioned at the beginning, that oftentimes with quantity comes qualitative change. what's new here are the levels of incoherence we find in political institutions and their governing authority. on the one hand, the party establishments and their governing philosophies appear to be less meaningfully connected
to the minds and hearts of constituencies. this is reflected in the continuation of a long-term trend marked bay grog number of self-identified independents, presently at 43% of the electorate. more significantly, leading candidates for the presidency have openly challenged or contradicted the ideas or rules of conduct that long defined the mainstream party establishments. this has been manifestly true among republicans for whom under trump, conservative and party self-identification have been strained, if not severed. it was also true for democrats. most notably in the surprisingly strong campaign of a populous candidate who didn't register as a democrat until the day of the new hampshire primary. also new are the economic changes that have become
magnified in public consciousness in the years following the great recession, underemployment, wage stagnation, decline in certain areas of manufacturing, loss of industry to developing parts of the world and the perceived loss of jobs through illegal immigration. while members of the professional upper middle class have seen their fortunes rise, the working and lower middle classes have suffered. the latter have seen the horizons of opportunity and hope for a better life, grow more distant and in some cases disappear. what is more, they see many values and beliefs they live by once perceived as honorable if their own communities ridiculed and -- by a privileged and cultural elite. in the face of this onslaught, they have felt the sting and
personal humiliation of social deplorability long before hillary clinton spoke of such things during this election year. in this light, the unusual candidacies of donald trump, bernie sanders, ted cruz and others are not so much anomalous as they are reflections of the political confusion of our times, which has not been addressed coherently and affectively by the political establishment and its leaders. moreover, the soft appeal of some of the recent candidates holds a growing attraction because i promises clarity in the face of murkiness in the face of inept or corrupt leadership. it doesn't matter whether the champions of promises can deliver on their claims. it is the promises that count. if trump didn't exist, some might say, we would have to invent him.
the 2016 presidential election is the stage upon which these deeper, longer term cultural and institutional dynamics are being played out. the 2016 race pitted a weakening political establishment that happened to be democratic against an emerging populous insurgency that happened to be republican. and we know that it could just as easily have been the other way. thortarian impulses bubble up from the right and the left. in short, as long as the social, cultural and political conditions described above are in place, we are likely to see more election years like 2016, with similar campaigns and candidates. but the question remains is this. does the 2016 election signify a tipping point in our political
culture? of course we will only know in retro spect. it will never do so in the future. there are darker alternatives that seem more visible and foreboding than we have seen in a while. the cultural conditions that made the alternatives plausible will likely be with us for some time to come. thank you.
>> this report raises several important observations about our political climate or should i say weather and our current political culture. as a his attorney, i'm for more likely to analyze american democracy from what scholars call the long duray. it gives priority to long term historical developments. i see american democracy as far less democratic and less stable than we like to admit. in many ways as james hunter emphasizes, i also see donald trump as both reflecting current discontent and representing a perfect storm because he's drawing on a much older set of traditions, ideological traditions to talk about that
discontent that have, as i'm saying a much older history. that's what i would like to highlight today. one question i would like to pose is for us to think about how american democracy in the past has also relied on exploiting cultural divisions rather than upholding the belief in a strong, moderate and reasonable center. what i would like to say is part of what we see going on today is this idea is that the center itself has always been contested. and that's an important thing we have to think about. who claims to represent the center and who claims to feel disinherited or outside of that center? second, and i'm going to spend most of my comments talking about the disinherited because i think it's a really useful concept. they rely on this older ideology
that i would argue divides the american electorate into what we would call the rightful heirs of our country and those who are often deemed as pretenders, or strangers to the american way of life. third, one of the things we have to think about here is our american political practices are often thwarting genuine democracy. in part, this is an idea that goes back to the early 19th century. it reflects a term coined by washington irving who argued our political system, rather than being a democracy is actually a logocracy. he meant our government or ideals run on words, words that are not going to be fulfilled or
promises that are not going to be fulfilled. and i would add in modern times, as the report shows, it explains why americans do subscribe to tribal party loyalties because it's very important in the way in which american politics has relied on political culture, identity politics and that's older than a new phenomena we often see journalists comment on. it also creates certain problems. one of the things that you will notice in some of the polling data is that americans are prone, at times, to want to reduce their political discontent to a single premise, a single idea, a single solution that somehow explains everything. i mean, i couldn't help noticing the one about, you know, the
governments govern best that govern the least, which is often a play off thomas jefferson. we know that's not really true. but, those ways in which people are looking for certain premises that sum up everything neatly into one set of ideas, one solution. it's discouraging for getting americans to think about political problems in more complicated ways. i think this ties into something very important about the trump phenomena. in the past and the present, americans have often voted with their ears. what i mean by that is they often vote for candidates who they see speaking their language. and this is something that again and again has come up with trump. people like him because he's described as speaking with a
kind of raw honesty. it's not a scripted politician. i think we have to realize, we have a long tradition which is shaped politics. we now have a mass media, which is incredibly influential in shaping people, how they think and feel. it's also important because it shows how, even that idea of america being a source of entertainment has a much older tradition. if we go to the colonial period to get people to come to the polls, they had to treat them. they had to offer free food and alcohol. you can imagine what happened after they started eating and drinking. this is sort of another thing i want to highlight today. now, we know it's easy for politicians and pundits to romanticize and hold up jefferson's independence that all men are created equal as a highest ideal. the truth is, throughout history, americans never really
embraced true equality. there are so many examples of this over and over again. every scholar knows slavery created a combustible system. the civil war, alone, proves we failed to establish a democracy. it fits into the legitimacy. the aftermath, two different political cultures emerged in the industrialized north and the jim crow south. to give you an idea of how this creates problems of thinking about democracy in the past, because of poll taxes, the southern states affectively disenfranchise not only poor blacks, but poor whites in the jim crow era. from 1900 to 1916, only 32% of the south's population voted in presidential elections. dropping to 20% in the period of
1920 and 1924. po polls were not officially challenged by the supreme court until 1966 w the passage of the 24th amendment. to throw another wrinkle in this, we, of course, know that until 1920, the female half of the u.s. population was denied the right to vote and they are the majority of the population. but this is important, i think, for how politics is shaped today. part of the problem is that historically, the very definition of stability has often rested on disenfranchising groups deemed as undeserving full citizenship. on my way up here on the train, i was talking to a woman from australia who mentioned to me, she gos in australia, voting is
a civic duty. in our country, voting is seen as a privilege, something inherited or earned rather than something that everyone must do and that's kind of the symbol of democracy. i also argue that the cold war was hardly a time of stability with the suppression of decent, forced displays of loyalty and a culture infused with fears of nuclear annihilation and witch hunts. not only where there duck and cover drills, which i did as a child but the pta recommended children be given dog tags so they could be identified after the bomb was dropped. the 1950s rested on an idea of weeding out dangerous things, which was measured not only by political beliefs or party
identification, but religion, sexual behavior and demanding civil rights. we know in the case of martin luther king, he was called a communist by southern democrats. so, as i mentioned before, the center has always been contested. there have always been ways in which politics doesn't just reflect party platforms, but reflected how people define themselves. do they define themselves as reflecting the core of what american sus statains or a dangs outsider. now, as i mentioned, the reports emphasis is useful and insightful. i think it does capture the sensibility of a certain class and i'm going to focus on the republican voters or independents who lean republicans. it certainly captures trump's
slogan of make america great again. the language of a democracy is a familiar complaint in the united states. you can see how it has various manifestations. it was part of the language of the moral majority and the raving years, part of the language that was associated with mixon's silent majority and both of those political groups saw themselves as it has backbone of the american society who had been displaced by some pretender class. but the roots of that are even older. the confederacy, as expressed by jefferson davis in numerous speeches argued the confederacy imbodied the revolution and they were the founding fathers.
before that, thomas jefferson said he was restoring the true and pure principles, the core, the center, that could be traced back to the american revolution. now, as i argued in white trash, americans class language has relied heavily on the language of inheritance, pedigree and sorting out the superior and inferior, quote, breeds of americas. trump supporters like the tea party distrust the state. they see liberal democrats as handing over their country to undeserving classes, immigrants, african-americans, lazy welfare free loaders or obamacare recipients, gay people, angry feminists demanding equal pay who all represent people and classes that have failed to play by the rules, who have failed to
work their way up the social ladder and have not earned those rights, earned those privileges, which, again, the disinherited feel the federal government is granting them. we know, as the report emphasized, 85% of the disinherited said they are going to vote for trump. the class culture that the report highlights reflects, i think, a series of overlapping divisions that underscore the ideology of the disinherited. i would also add there's a division between urban and rural, cosmo poll tan and prudential. the old sectional division between the north and south is still with us. when studies were done with trump's followers, west virginia was the state most likely to go for trump. we know the way in which the southern primaries played out. the southern way of politics had a great deal of influence in
shaping his appear and popularity. the disinherited also see social elites as creating this rigged system one which benefits not only themselves, benefits the social elites but there's also this kind of language of patron and client and they see the elite class as kind of this ben ef lent class gavinging patronage to clients, armies or gays. and they see this as, again, creating an unfair and rigged system because it's pushing these people ahead of, again, the true americans, the people who are hard working, religious and identify with small town life. now we know that trump supporters are not all working class.
in fact, many working class americans who are in unions support clinton for obvious reasons, not only because she backed by the unions, but people in unions make higher wages and, in a sense, have benefits. many of the people in the disinherited group come from middle class backgrounds, but we also know, i think nate silver did studies that were interesting to suggest during the primaries, some of trump's voters were wealthier than those supporting bernie sanders and hillary clinton. but they identify, they see themselves as -- identify themselves as being from the middle class. they also see themselves, they describe themselves as antiglobal isolationists, hence the powerful symbolism of trump's magical border wall, which i believe represents not only the desire to keep poor
immigrants out and reduce job competition, but an important metaphor of keeping industrial jobs in the united states. and when we think about the category of thinking of the disinherited of having a more prudential identity, this ties into being more nationalistic, more patriotic, devoted for rituals like standing for the national anthem or traditional marriage and more likely to have a more worshipable view of the founding fathers and believe in an original interpretation of the constitution. in this sense, prudential means protecting the native born culture in which rural life is more traditional, less corrupted by foreign ideas and small town america is ensuring a simpler way of life.
this is really important. we have to think about it. a simpler way of life in which everyone knows their place. and that means women know their place. blacks know their place. foreigners know their place. those protenders to pretty cal power that the disinherent distrust see them as stealing their respect, stealing the assumed male authority of the rightful heirs of america. these are white men with jobs, heads of households, the makers, not the takers. this is why trump's birtherism is central to his appeal and as the report noted, 40% of trump supporters are birthers. is that when trump attacked president obama and challenged him to produce his birth certifica certificate, he was challenging president obama as an
illegitimate president because of his questionable pedigree, which was not only racist, but was a way to tarnish him as a stranger, a leader totally incapable of understanding an authentic kind of american heritage and identity. finally, when we think about the tribalism that is so prevalent in our class ideology, i also want to stress that part of american history has not only measured class identity through working hard, that's a rhetoric we hear over and over again. working hard, you'll get ahead. this is a measure of class identity. it it's also tied to the disinherited to not only working hard, but being tied to being rooted to the land, having roots. class in the united states, today, is defined by where you live, the kind of home and neighborhood that you grow up in
and the values that are associated with that sense of place. the disinherited distrust groups that they see as rootless. as i have written in my book, this goes back to a long standing english hate red. the mobile poor. for the disinherited, rootlessness applied to the top of the social hierarchy and the bottom. they represent the actual core whom they dismiss as being lazy, failing to get a stable job, failing foreign families and failing to accept their situation until they get ahead. they also see the social elites at rootless, too. they are too kcosmo poll tan. they see the social elite as
removing boundaries that ensure social order. those boundaries are not just a wall and the idea of maintaining boundaries between countries in terms of trade, but boundaries between men and women, preserving traditional roles, boundaries between gay and straight, preserving traditional marriage. and also, more importantly, preserving the boundary between the lower classes and the middle class. because, removing that class boundary, which works on that system of working hard to get ahead, threatens the disinherited who feel they will lose out in an economic world that they believe operates according to a zero sum game. what that means is that a zero sum game imply that is games by one class take away the rights and games from another class. now, i also believe the
tribalism has been created by our media system. cable television news, talk radio, facebook, twitter, bloggers on the internet and we also know that this can create a whole universe of conspiracy feelings and feelings of victimization. it can create a sense of community and also, i think, facilitate alienation at the same time because as it facilitates a sense of being victims and outsiders. bob in salon.com reported on some of the conspiracy theories which we know sound like really fringe ideas, but they are not. birtherism is one of those ideas. looking at obama as being a muslim. even strange ideas where people talk about how obama's gay, michelle is really a man and
their children were kidnapped. this kind of world that lives on the fringe, we can say those people don't matter. you know, we can ignore them. what's striking about this article is that when he described the impulses for those ideas, reflected, i think the fears of the disinherited in this report. because basically, what drove these people was their fear of a liberal foreign toxin that are falsely perceived to exist within the circulatory system of the republic. they also tend to see trump as the flame thrower and from the ashes, what will return is the rise of white dominance and a more civilized society. i think that idea of trump is a flame thrower is really
important because it also reflects one of the points in the report that it's where people responded and said we need a president who will completely change the country. i found that really, really stark and disturbing. they didn't explain what change they wanted. any kind of change is somehow positive or good. and i think that kind of desire to tear things down without thinking of the consequences is also social commentators and political commentators talking the thor tearism, the krip toe fascism and the deci prasperati. restoring the order to perfect, original form. that, i think is prevalent in the vocabulary. for trump supporters, 2008 had a double meaning. the recession and decline of the
middle class and the rise and coronation of barack obama. they want to restore order to america, a class racial and gender order that ensures the true center of america, the white, rural, moral, small town hard working, heart of america. and they believe that if they do so, if they can restore this order, that what will come with it is a renewed sense of that center's claim to political authority, that center's claim to prioritizing their values and also that distrustful and threatened group that feels this is necessary to accomplish in order for them to hold on to their piece of the american dream. thank you.
>> first of all, it's a pleasure to be here. james hunter, i want to thank for inviting me. a tool to really understand the way politics has changed over the past generation. his book, "culture wars" is really a foundational book in a sense. i am very pleased to be on the stage with him. i found this survey was very useful in this division it makes
between credentials and noncredentials and the social elite versus the disinherited. a very good way to look at the way politics are now dividing. nancy presented a very good argument. i have a different take. i think one way to look at the trump phenomena and the trump electorate is less to dmonize them than recognize they actually have a realistic outlook on their position in society. if you look at -- think in terms of relative status rather than absolute status. are you moving up in the pecking order or are you moving down? one of the central characteristics of the trump voter is they see themselves
economically, socially and culturally moving down the ladder. it is critical and this is in the relative status, particularly. you see this with men versus women. the women are on the ascending. a lot of men see themselves being pushed aside, that the feminist revolution has left them behind. what's interesting is you see this with blacks and hispanics being quite optimistic because, especially politically, they are on the ascending and in a winning coalition where the white, working class, feels on the descending. that's clear on the economic front where the fall of
manufacturing jobs are realistically on the short end of the stick. political representation is also very important. it's one of the striking things right after the great recession in 2008-2009, was that black americans who took the worst hit, they lost more wealth, more home value, more income than any other group, remained more optimistic than whites, much more optimistic because, in part, they had political representation in the white house and did not feel abandoned. whereas whites who took a hit felt less represented. on the cultural front, the survey shows that evangelicals and conservative catholics are among those who feel clearly left out.
they are left out. if you look at our culture now, tv, movies, the values that are expressed in the culture are clearly not those of evangelicals and conservative catholics. there has been -- as far back as 1998, paul, a leader of the christian right background said, and this was right after the senate voted not to impeach bill clinton, paul declared, i think he was dead on, there is no moral majority in america. that's true. there is no longer, in america, what the people who support the values of the moral majority would say they are now clearly
in the minority. it's clear, if you look at the trends on how gay marriage has become a positive figure in a matter of eight years from 2004 to 2012. gay marriage went from being a winner for george w. bush as an opponent to a winner for barack obama as a proponent. society has flipped. flipping on these issues, it has flipped against the values of conservative christians and conservative catholics in general. another phenomena that is taking place and is harder to measure is that those who experience scarcity, which means declining economic value in your life, declining cultural sense of
majority, they -- robert putnam does a study of diversity, people living in more diverse communities tend to hunker down. this, he found very disturbing because he's a believer in the idea that the more you get to know your neighbor and if your neighbor is a diverse collection of people, the more you would become accepting of them. he found, much to his distress, the opposite was the case. the more you have diversity, the more people pull in. they stay in their house and civic values or civic participation declines. what that -- when you have economic scarcity, people do not turn to the left. rom emanuel famously said when barack obama took office, he was then chief of staff, we can't
let a great recession go by without taking advantage of it. in fact, there was nothing to take advantage of. people turned to the right in this circumstance. it was not a situation where the liberal instinct grew. instead, the conservative instinct grew and you saw, shortly after that, the rise of the tea party and the republican sweep of the house and senate. crashing down on liberalism. growth, conversely, is the circumstance that liberals need. when there's growth and you feel things are expanding, you are much more prepared to be generous in what you do and more willing to say i'm doing well, i can afford to help out people who need help. people on the left and the right become more generous.
when you are in a scarce world, and that's what many of these white, working class voters feel themselves, a declining, narrow world where opportunities are being reduced, you are inclined -- it's not irrational to see the world in terms of a zero gain. things are getting smaller and smaller. your income, your job opportunities so that an immigrant is coming in is just adding to the competition for a lesser good. there's also the temptation to be pulled toward impulses to have someone come in and step in and declare you have rights and i'm going to protect them.
what's interesting is that, and i think this is really the most significant thing that comes out of this whole survey is that whites are splitting in two categories. the down scale whites, noncredentialed and the credentialed or social elite whites. this represents what i think is a -- the ultimate tipping point in this election, which is that liberalism is really no longer the ideology of the underdog. it's actually the ideology and the democratic party with it of the overdog. in the white community. not in the minority community. among whites, it's the people, the whites who are most liberal
and most democratic are the best educated, the people who are doing well in the current economy, the people who are the lawyers, doctors, academics, all and journalists for that matter who have a life where they see a positive, good future. conservati conservatism, conversely, has become really for the first time, under trump and how long that will last, we'll see. it's become the ideology of the underdog. this is very different from the conservatism of the republican party from 19 -- i'm sorry, 2012 and before. i don't know how sustained this is going to be, but this election has produced at least momentarily, a flipping of the
two parties. the democratic party for generations, certainly in my youth and well before that, through the great depression, well into the '70s, they thought of the democratic party as the party of the working man and woman, jill and joe sixpack and the republican party as the party of wall street and elites and professionals. that's just no longer true. trump may signal a flipping of that in a way that is going to be very interesting to watch post this election and how the republican party comes to terms with that, i think, is one of the most -- it's going to be, from a political reporter's point of view, it is the story to be watching. i will end on that. we have a few minutes for questions, i guess. >> thank you, tom.
we do have a few minutes for questions. so, please ask away. yes. please, would you identify yourself, please? [ inaudible ] >> ask anyone -- about change. walking the streets of d.c. where people were doing it. he's about change. that's all you knew about was change. why is it wrong that trump is about change? >> one of the things that i've written about is highlighting that trump, when he says make america great again is about turning the clock back. it's about returning to the 1950s, returning to a period of time where america was more of an industrial nation where working people were more likely
to particularly working white men were likely to support their families. if you compare it to bernie sanders, remember, he's calling for class he's calling for clas resolution. that's also dramatic change to be demanded. but with barack obama, part of what was going on there was to point out that from the old republican party who wanted to see themselves as more conservative, that change was somehow dangerous. but that -- i really think the evangelical, more conservative neocon wing of the republican party has been silenced to a large degree with the rise of trump. but i think the problem is that change can be, you know, any candidate can claim change. but i think that barack obama's vision was one moving for the future, moving more in the direction of expanding opportunity and equality. where trump's change is not.
it's about restoring a group of disinherited people back to their rightful place. so i think that's -- you're exactly right to point out the h hypocrisy, but this is the nuance of what people hear when they say which direction do we want to go when we talk about change. >> there's a question over here please. yes? >> i'm frank lockwood with the arkansas democrat gazette. i've been interviewing evangelical leaders looking at places like christianity today and there are a lot of them that are out there very much anti-donald trump but the polling suggests that the people that are in the pews are overwhelmingly for mr. trump. how do you explain this disconnect between the two of them? >> who would like to field that? tom's written on this. tom and carly. >> i think that the -- a lot of
the leadership, particularly christianity today type evangelicals are basically moderates. and they are basically also well educated, and if they weren't quite so religiously based, they probably would be democrats. whereas the evangelical population feels much more under siege by the existing -- by the culture that we live in. and see themselves much more as isolated and under assault whereas christianity today and other -- the head of the -- what's the -- ethics and public policy center. these are more intellectuals, and the more intellectual you
are, the less you're going to align yourself with trump. but if you're feeling from the gut, which is what i think a lot of evangelicals responding to polls are, they feel an appeal to the guy. >> to -- >> one point. >> one quick point. i just wanted to say that i think from the very beginning of trump's rise, he threatened the evangelical wing of the republican party. a, he knows nothing about the bible. the only thing bobby jindal ever said that i thought was right on point, he said he's never read the bible because he's not in it. and i think he's threatened the family values wing that's closely aligned with evangelicals. the fact that his past and now all the current revelations about his sexual behavior also undermines. what i find so amazing is the
evangelical wing that was so powerful and had its place in the republican party has been pushed to the side. so i think there is a division there in terms of how the voters who want to support trump, they may, as the study shows, identify themselves as being religious. but that's not the attraction that's driving them to support trump. >> i'd like to piggyback on what -- >> go ahead. >> it was interesting in the survey we were trying to model some -- develop some models to predict support for trump versus support for clinton. education came out as a primary factor. but as the secondary factor, it was not whether or not someone was religious or religiosity. it was whether they defined themselves as religiously conservative that placed them in
the disinherited and made them more likely to support donald trump. among people who called themselves religious moderates, we actually weren't quite sure what to do with them for a while. but we had another question asking people whether they considered themselves born again or evangelical. and again in modeling the data, it seemed with moderates if you took those who called themselves evangelical or born again, they belonged with -- among the disinherited. with religious conservatives. but moderates who night be very religious in terms of prayer and other kinds of measures of religiosity in the study who didn't say they were born again or evangelical. went with another group in terms of their support. >> i think we have time for one more question. but we could go over the two-hour -- but, yes.
jodi, you will have time for two. >> richard miles. one number that really puzzles me is the president's overall approval rating. and that doesn't seem really to fit in with your data. if 7 out of 10 or 8 out of 10 people are really mad at the system, distrustful, cynical, alienated, how is it that the president has approval numbers now in the mid-50s where you'd expect that to be much, much lower, especially given the fact that his signature program is running into a lot of problems and that seems to be emblem attic of what people are mad about. i have no idea how we get there. i thought you might have some insights. >> carl? >> i'll respond to that. i can't explain it. but we do find the same pattern in our survey. we have a favorability measure of obama. he comes up as much more
favorable than either hillary clinton or donald trump do. and, you know, because we were focused upon things that tie in with our historical study but also for this particular election year, we haven't gone into that, but it's a very good question. we should spend more time with it. >> one more. here. right here. >> -- of the report. probably less of the study, but i was sort of disappointed looking at it that it didn't have more trend data. in fact it has none in the report. now, you did show one of the slides and it did, as any pollster will tell you, the trend is more important than the absolute value because you never know. people tend to tell the pollster what they think you want or she
wants to hear. and you -- because the emphasis both in the title and in much of the presentation is on vanishing, on dynamics and so oi think it would strengthen the report. and while gallup probably doesn't -- or pew doesn't have exactly these questions over time, just adding some background tend data, would, i think, strengthen the argument. and looking at the very long term where we tonight have poll dating. we're going through other periods where we've had much more disaffection than we have now. but looking at recent trends i think would strengthen the report. >> there is a section early on in the report that looks at some of the historical data and continuities. but it's not in chart form. >> even in footnotes.
>> right. but thank you. we can do more with that. i agree. >> well, thank you very much. first of all, to our panelists from near and far. and my colleagues from the institute. and to all of you who have come here today. it was, i think, a very interesting commentary on where we are right now and what might be in our near future. what might be coming along. thank you very much. [ applause ] watch c-span's live coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and donald trump on wednesday night. our live debate preview from the university of nevada, las vegas, starts at 7:30 p.m. the briefing for the debate studio audience is at 8:30 p.m. and the 90-minute debate is at
9:00 p.m. eastern. stay with us following the debate for viewer reaction. and watch the debate live or on demand using your desktop, phone or tablet at c-span.org. listen to live coverage with the free c-span radio app. download it from the app store or google play. here is c-span3 tonight, white house national security adviser susan rice talks about normalized relations with cuba. that's followed by a discussion on government surveillance. then a look at health care costs with current and former white house officials. and later economic advisers to hillary clinton and donald trump discuss their candidate's plans for the u.s. economy. today white house national security adviser susan rice outlined new policy directives from the administration to increase trade and travel with cuba now that the u.s. has normalized relations. some changes include allowing cigars and rum to be purchased
for personal consumption. and a push for congress to lift a 50-year-old economic embargo. from the wilson center, this is 45 minutes. >> good morning. welcome to the wilson center. i'm jane harman, the president and ceo, and we're delighted that you're here for a very significant event with our national security adviser. let me recognize a few folks in the front row. our former board member carlos gutierrez, former u.s. commerce secretary, and big fan of the president's cuba policy. he evolved, and i'm delighted that he did. and then some of wilson center's finest, cindy arneson who directs our latin american program, her deputy eric and our -- the director of -- eric
olson and the director of our africa program and andrew sealy who is the executive vice president of the wilson center. and the former director of our mexico program. we also -- no, i think there are no ambassadors. if there are any ambassadors here, my apologies if i haven't recognized you. ambassador of luxembourg is here. my trusted buddy susan would point that out. so a long time ago, i served on a d.c. board. i've been trying to remember which one. with lois rice. an, normously capable academic leader who served as vice president of the college entrance examination board and led the passage of the pell grant program among other things. who knew that lois' daughter would be a rock star in the national security space. over the years, susan's and my lives have overlapped in various
policy fora and on the tennis court. i encountered susan early in the clinton administration. she's been recognized as u.s. ambassador to the u.n. and now sitsaed the crux of foreign policy as white house national security adviser. it honors the wulson center that she is here today to talk about new presidential action on cuba. a country that i personally have visited twice. a fascinating country. it will be more fascinating, i hope, in years forward as it opens up. at any rate, while the cuban government continues to embrace an ideology that restrains change, the opportunities for the country and its talented people are obvious. president obama was right. if a policy in place for 50 years doesn't work, we ought to change it. and he did. much credit for the change in cuba policy goes to someone who we -- we have to do this.
who learned everything he knows working at the wilson center for lee hamilton who was my predecessor here. that person is ben wrote, susan's deputy who was one of the two people who conducted the secret talks that led to normalization of u.s./cuba relations. ben has been back with us several times, most recently to address the board of the latin america program. and today, we welcome his boss, ambassador susan rice, to learn more about next steps. susan will speak for approximately 20 minutes, then take a few questions from me and then take a few questions from you. she has a hard stop in about 45 minutes, i think. please welcome lois rice's daughter and our dear friend, ambassador susan rice. [ applause ] >> my mom is going to be
thrilled. thank you very, very much, jane. good morning, everyone. i want to thank you for that very kind and very personal introduction. but more, i want to thank you for your extraordinary leadership of this very important institution. i'm really glad to be back here, and i'm grateful for this opportunity to talk about our cuba policy at a place where so much good work on the americas has been going on. i also want to recognize and thank former secretary of commerce carlos gutierrez for being here and for his lifetime of remarkable work and achievements that reflect the story of so many cuban americans. i've been looking very much forward to coming back, jane, to the wilson center. and you've been very kind to offer this opportunity on a number of occasions. but to do so and to be able to talk about the administration's approach to cuba and where we
see normalization heading is a particularly valuable opportunity. in many ways, it's still incredible to be talking about normalization at all. some will recall that 54 years ago today, marked the beginning of perhaps the most dangerous moment in human history. on october 14th, 1962, an american u2 plane flying high over cuba photographed the construction of offensive nuclear missile sites on the island. missiles capable of striking washington, d.c., and major cities throughout the hemisphere. for 13 terrifying days, humanity teetered on the brink of nuclear war. mcgeorge bundy called the prospect reciprocal mortal peril. fortunately, cool heads and
vigorous diplomacy averted the immediate crisis. but mutual suspicion remained. and u.s./cuba relations remained deeply hostile. for over half a century, the united states tried to isolate and pressure cuba, cutting off travel and trade and limiting opportunities for cubans and americans to interact. the castros remained in power while over time the united states found itself increasingly isolated on this issue. especially in our own hemisphere. even as we re-established relations with communist nations like china and vietnam, our posture towards cuba persisted. driven more by inertia and political calculation than a clear assessment of our national interest. this policy may have made sense during the cold war. it was rooted in good intentions but, put simply, it wasn't
working. recognizing this reality, president obama came into office determined to re-examine our approach to cuba. to begin, we relaxed restrictions on remittances and allowed cuban americans to travel home to visit their families. we stepped up dialogue with the cuban american community. eventually, we reached out, cautiously and deliberately to the cuban government. it took almost two years of closely held negotiations as jane said, led by my friend and colleague ben wrost. but finally on september 17th, 2014, the people of the united states and cuba saw something that many never expected to see in their lifetimes. president obama and president castro announced that the united
states and cuba would begin normalizing relations. it will be, i expect, one of the enduring achievements of the obama administration. now i know not everyone agrees with this decision. there are those who believe that normalization is a mistake, or that we didn't extract sufficient concessions. some reject any notion that the embargo should be lifted at this time or maybe ever. but the hard truth is that the embargo failed to achieve its stated purpose of overturning the castro regime. while harming the cuban people. as one 76-year-old cuban woman wrote to president obama, the over half century cruel embargo on this lovely, enduring and resilient little island just didn't work. if we want to actuall lely help
cuban people, then it's time to turn the page on a policy that was holding them back. we should learn from over 50 years of experience. even as we continue to call on the cuban government to make their own reforms, let's lead by example and make our own. congress should do its part. we must lift the embargo once and for all. in march, i had the pleasure of joining president obama as he became the first sitting american president to visit cuba in nearly 90 years. i've been on a lot of foreign trips, but this one was rather special. in addition to president obama's meetings with president castro, we met with entrepreneurs and civil society activists. and we capped it off by watching the tampa bay rays defeat the cuban national team in an exhibition game. president obama entered the
stadium to thunderous applause. i sat near president obama and the obama family. president castro, jackie robinson's widow rachel robinson, and derek jeter. as the cuban choir sang our national anthem. it was surreal, to say the least. as i looked at the young people in that stadium, and on the streets that greeted our motorcade, it reaffirmed something that the president strongly believes. and that is we cannot simply stand back and wait for cuba to change. we should be engaged with the government and people of cuba right now. in recent years, cuba has taken some initial steps to reform its economy and open up to the world. and even as we continue to have serious differences, our new policy continues the work that we've begun to build a bilateral
relationship. to improve the livelihoods of the cuban people. to connect cuba to the united states and the wider world. and to address our differences through dialogue. today, i'm pleased to announce that president obama is issuing a new presidential policy directive that will institutionalize this progress and guide the united states policy towards cuba for the future. this directive outlines the future we'd like to see. the future of greater engagement, greater cooperation, and greater opportunity for americans and cubans. it assesses the current strategic landscape and our key policy objectives within that context. and it directs a wide range of agencies from the department of treasury to the department of health and human services to
expand their engagement with cuban counterparts to achieve those objectives. perhaps most importantly, this directive is being made public. in decades past, the united states used to have secret plans for cuba. now our policy is fully out in the open and online for everyone to read. what you see is what you get. this unclassified directive supersedes and replaces the previous administration's cuba policy and any prior classified documents laying out that policy. as president obama told the people of cuba in havana, this is a new day. between our two countries. and with the remainder of my time this morning, i'd like to discuss what exactly has changed about our approach to cuba and
why it's so important that we continue on this path. first and foremost, it's a new day for our bilateral relations. after years of bad blood, the american flag flies proudly over our reopened embassy in havana. last month, president obama nominated an outstanding foreign service officer, ambassador jeffrey de laurentiis to be the first u.s. ambassador to cuba in more than 50 years. jeff has skillfully represented our interests in cuba, including his chief of mission in havana since august of 2014. the best way to advocate for our values and interests is to have a strong ambassador who can travel the country and engage with the cuban people. stronger diplomatic ties will enable fruitful dialogue on areas where we differ.
so to our friends in congress who express concern about cuba's human rights record, don't just say you care. empower our embassy to do its job. confirm ambassador jeff delaurentiis as soon as you return from recess. across the board, we're stepping up our engagement between our governments. we've created new bilateral -- a new bilateral commission to collaborate on key issues. six u.s. cabinet secretaries have visited the island and four cuban ministers have come to the united states. these high level meetings have yielded progress on everything from marine sanctuaries to agriculture to biomedical research. as two nations intimately impacted by climate change, we also look forward to partnering to address this great threat to our planet. we're enhancing our security
cooperation. a year and a half ago, an outdated approach listed cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism. today, it's an emerging partner in the fight against terrorism. our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have begun to deepen cooperation as well on combating drug trafficking and transnational crime. in january, u.s. south com invited a cuban delegation to its conference to discuss disaster response and other security issues. as general john kelly, our former southcom commander put it, we've normalized now, and regardless of how we think of each other in terms of politics, we have very, very common challenges. and with viruses like zika threatening global health security, our health professionals are increasingly cooperating to combat disease, as well as leading new research
into cancer control and treatment. it's a new day for our economic engagement as we aim to promote prosperity for all of our people. even with the embargo still in place, the obama administration has initiated a series of regulatory changes designed to increase travel, commerce, and the free flow of information to, from and within cuba. we've authorized the use of the dollar in certain international financial transactions. we've made it easier for americans to visit cuba. easier to use american credit and debit cards on the island. easier to sell and to export certain goods and services. american travel to the island has increased over 75% from 2014 to 2015. we've seen american businesses
entering cuba from general electric to airbnb. these changes are fueling cuba's nascent private sector. the young people at the entrepreneurship event that president obama attended in cuba would have felt right at home in silicon valley. there was a young graphic designer who is now getting training from the columbia business school. a woman who created a mobile guide to cuba, similar to yelp. one barber commented one year ago he was the only [ speaking foreign language ] on his street. more than 1 in 4 cubans work in the private sector. roughly double the percentage when president obama came into office. and we want to keep encouraging that creativity and innovation
just as we have supported openings for american tech companies like google and cisco in cuba. we want to do still more to engage and do business with cuba. that's why today the departments of treasury and commerce are announcing further regulatory changes. we're expanding the grants and scholarships that can be made to cubans to include scientific research and religious activities. that's in addition to the previously authorized grants for humanitarian projects that benefit the cuban people such as educational and philanthropic projects. this change will allow the american people to support more cuban students, academics and community leaders. we're enhancing medical cooperation, authorizing joint research so that cubans and americans can combine their talent in pursuit of vaccines and other medical innovations
and allowing americans to import fda approved cuban origin pharmaceuticals that can provide relief to people here at home. and we're lifting the cap on cuban merchandise that americans can bring back with them for personal use. that includes alcohol and tobacco products. i thought that may wake some of you up. you can now celebrate with cuban rum and cuban cigars. despite these changes, there are still firm limits on what can be done without congress lifting the embargo. so again, i want to reiterate that congress should listen to the majority of americans who oppose the embargo, including a majority of cuban americans in the miami community. we need to end this outdated burden on the cuban people.
end the restriction on americans who want to do business with them. help us secure a better future for both countriies through the exchange of resources, goods and ideas. and if you want to start somewhere, get rid of the travel ban. a policy that almost nobody in america outside of congress still supports. in that spirit, we also want to encourage the cuban government to accelerate its pursuit of economic reforms. it should be much easier to start a business in cuba. one country, two currencies, should be phased out. every cuban should be able to share in its country's growth. especially members of marginalized communities like afro cubans. the internet should be a tool for the many, not a privilege for the few.
the cuban government has recently established 100 wifi hot spots around the island but internet penetration is still only about 5%. one of the lowest rates in the world. that's going to hold back a young cuban from creating the next great mobile app. or a student from accessing a world of knowledge. so we will continue to urge the cuban government to do more to connect cubans to this tremendous engine of growth and to facilitate the free exchange of information and ideas that are the life blood of modern economies. while much work remains to be done, it's also a new day in our commitment to promote respect for human rights. and universal values in cuba. i want to be clear. the united states respects cuba's sovereignty and its right to self-determination. president obama has also been
adamant that the united states has no intention of imposing regime change on cuba. cuba's future is for the people of cuba to decide. but that does not mean that we will sideline our most cherished principles. just as we speak up for these things around the world. we firmly believe that every citizen should be able to choose his or her leaders freely and fairly. we believe in the right of a lady in white to walk through the streets in protest just as americans are free to speak out against bias in our criminal justice system. freedom of speech and assembly. freedom of religion. these aren't just american values. they're universal values. as we do in countries around the world, we will continue to advocate in cuba for the basic human rights that are recognized by virtually every nation in our hemisphere and to stand by cubans who peacefully demand these rights.
president obam has repeatedly raised these issues with president castro. president castro isn't shy to criticize what he sees as flaws in the united states' political and economic systems. in fact, today our assistant secretary of state for democracy and human rights, tom malinowski, is in cuba right now. so when dissidents are jailed or harassed, we will continue to speak out forcefully and demand justice. and we will continue to raise concerns about the intensifying pressure on civil society. but we don't have to conceal our support for our values. we believe that engaging openly and honestly is the best way to advance our ideals. and that's why we're making our democracy programs more transparent, and we're broadening the scope of the civil society that we engage. it's a new day as well for
regional and international cooperation. we sometimes forget that when president obama took office, the united states standing in latin america had suffered. hugo chavez and other anti-american voices were ascending and our outdated cuba policy was a big reason why. time after time in meeting after meeting, leaders from mexico to uruguay criticized our approach to cuba. it was a constant drum beat. a perennial irritant as we sought greater cooperation with our neighbors. thanks in part to our normalization policy, and an approach to the region based on cooperation and shared values, relationships between the united states and countries across the hemisphere are as good now as they've ever been. while we continue to have serious differences with -- and concerns about countries such as venezuela, virtually every
country in the region has supported our normalization effort with cuba. and recognizing that it will continue to be on different sides of some regional and global issues, we're working to integrate cuba to strengthen its adherence to the rules-based international order. already we're seeing what the united states and cuba can accomplish when we put aside the past and work to build a bright ir future. in west africa, american and cuban doctors join together to defeat the scourge of ebola. just as they've collaborated to care for patients in haiti. in colombia, the united states and cuba continue working to end the longest running civil war in the western hemisphere. obviously, we're disappointed by the results of the colombian referendum. the vote was a reminder there's still work to be done to realize the future for which president
santos and so many colombians are striving. last week, president obama called president santos to congratulate him hon his well-deserved receipt of the nobel peace prize. we're encouraged the cease-fire continues to hold and political figures continue to seek common ground, and that negotiators continue to meet in havana to try to salvage the peace agreement. and we also welcome the announcement of peace talks between the colombian government and the eln. finally, it's a new day for the peoples of our two countries. as we work to renew and strengthen the bonds between cubans and americans. cuban americans have been immeasurably -- cuban americans have immeasurably enriched the united states. as any baseball fan would tell you. but the cuban american story is a painful one as well.
for too many decades, families were cut off from one another. as president obama said in havana, the reconciliation of the cuban people, the children and grandchildren of the revolution and the children and grandchildren of exile, that is fundamental to cuba's future. in the coming months, those children and grandchildren will be able to travel on up to 110 daily round-trip flights from the united states to cuba. they can send direct mail for the first time in more than 50 years. american cruise liners are docking in cuban ports. we are encouraging that reconciliation when american chefs like jose andres meet their cuban counterparts. when shaquille o'neal plays basketball with young cubans or when the american men's soccer team enjoys a friendly
exhibition game with cuba, as they did just a week ago. next month, misty copeland of the american ballet theater will travel to cuba to teach dance classes and clinics. so we're going to continue building bridges between our peoples. we're supporting cuba's extraordinary commitment to education by expanding education and cultural exchanges, including through our 100,000 strong in the americas initiative. this week, eight cubans arrived in the united states as part of the inaugural class of 250 young leaders of the americas initiative fellows who are making our hemisphere more interconnected, prosperous and secure. that's in addition to the ten cuban entrepreneurs who joined president obama at this year's global entrepreneurship summit in silicon valley. as one cuban american woman says, and i quote, this is not
really symbolic. as a young cuban american, i have witnessed the real possibilities that have opened through good will to improve relations between our countries and to improve the lives of cuban citizens. ultimately, that is what normalization is all about. improving lives. indeed, as we've traveled around the world, we've heard over and over again that the opening between the united states and cuba has been a source of hope to people who no longer have any direct connection to this policy. and that's because it sends a message that countries can, in fact, leave behind a history of animosity. because it shows that people do not have to be defined by their differences. because it sets an example for how peaceful engagement can replace perpetual conflict.
later today, like most days, i'll be in the situation room. the same place where president kennedy and his executive committee held their breath for those tense days in october. in fact, we now call part of the situation room the john f. kennedy conference room. who would have thought in those days that we could concern ourselves not with cuban missile silos and quarantines but with american engagement on the island? who would have thought an american president could meet with cuban entrepreneurs and hear our national anthem in revolution square. or that a cuban president would answer questions from the american press corps. who would have thought that we could one day overcome the weight of history to forge a more secure and prosperous region together. as we go forward, i'm re minded of the words of the cuban american poet richard blanco.
words he recited at president obama's second inauguration when he spoke of, quote, hope. a new constellation. waiting for us to map it. waiting for us to name it together. that's the promise of this transformative approach to our neighbor. this is the world cubans and americans can shape together. and if we continue on this path, i'm confident that our future with cuba and in our hemisphere can be bright. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, ambassador rice. while you were speaking, i couldn't help but look at carlos gutierrez, himself a cuban immigrant who came to the u.s. as a young person, as i remember
this, and then headed one of the major corporations in america and then became united states secretary of commerce. so for those who think immigration doesn't matter, just look. exhibit a. i also want to recognize ambassador tony wayne. i saw him in the corner. we did have another ambassador here. maybe we have more. he was the u.s. ambassador to argentina. played a significant role in afghanistan and u.s. ambassador to mexico and now helps us at the wilson center as we look at developments in the north american space. and finally, on your comment about the internet, i would just point out that i'm told the wilson center website is not available in cuba. hmm. it's time to open up the internet, folks. i had some questions, but the audience questions are better, so i'm just going to go to them in the interest of time. question one -- what prevents a
future president from voiding president obama's policies on cuba? tearing them up? >> i would argue the answer to that is common sense. we have seen in the short span of time, jane, since december of 2014, just how much traction this policy change has gained. and how much support it has among the american people. it was a failed policy that we decided to replace. it had manifestly not achieved its objectives. and while we have no illusions that change in cuba will come overnight or be linear or swift necessarily, we're wholly convinced that through economic engagement, people to people ties, dialogue and advocacy for our values, we will have greater success over the next 50 years than we've had over the past 50.
we have human relationships that will be very difficult to break. we have business relationships that won't be in our interest to break. it would be profoundly unwise and counterproductive to turn back the clock. and i'm confident that the sheer logic and wisdom of this change will endure. >> isn't it also true that the younger generation, especially in florida, doesn't see these issues the way their parents and grandparents did? >> i think that's very true. >> so that's question one. question two -- what has been the response of the cuban government, both positive and negative, to the opening up of cuba that has been driven by the obama administration? >> well, it's been largely positive. president castro has, obviously, himself made the decision to pursue this change.
not without reaction from some of his closest relatives. and not without some reluctance in some quarters. and as i said, this transformation in our relationship is not going to be linear. i'm sure we will, on both sides, experience occasional setbacks. but it's an extraordinary amount of change that has occurred in what is not even two years to date. and when you look back at where we were this time in 2014, it would have been inconceivable to think that we are where we are today. and so i think that across the spectrum as i tried to outline in my remarks, the depth of our ties is growing. the breadth of our ties. government to government and people to people is also growing. and from the united states' point of view, i think as i've
argued, it's manifestly in our interest. i think in cuba, there are some who will fear this change. and who may continue to resist it. but i think the weight of opinion and the opportunities in front of the cuban people are such that on the cuban side as well, it would be very unwise to change course. >> you mentioned human rights in your talk. would that be a significant area of pushback if you had to pick one? >> it's a significant area of difference, no question, and will remain so. but when the president was down in cuba, i joined him in a very frank and very worthwhile discussion with cuban civil society activists, some of who have been mistreated before and after that engagement. but the fact that tom malinowski, our assistant secretary for democracy and human rights is down there engaging in the human rights dialogue that was committed to by the two leaders when we were
there in march is a sign that we are making some progress. and i'm sure that dialogue will be scratchy in parts. but that's the point. we don't have to agree on everything to have relationships with one another. any more than we have to agree on everything with other countries with whom we have complex relationships. >> well, i agree. when i was there on my first trip as a member of congress, a trip sponsored by the center for democracy and the americas, i don't know if -- there she is. sarah stevens is here. we had opportunity to discuss this in depth. they had some issues with us, too. some members of our delegation met with alan gross who was subsequently released. it's an ongoing dialogue and it's very important it stay actively at the top of the agenda. finally, this question is interesting. why is the administration pursuing incremental regulatory change? it is slowing down -- this is
the allegation. the business community's ability to be as aggressive as many want to be. the administration may have more wiggle room. why not do it all at once? thought you'd like that. >> first of all, those who are steeped in this know there is an extraordinarily complex and multilayered set of constraints on u.s. economic engagement with cuba. i mean, this was -- we've had 50 years of law and regulations layered on top of each other. it's a very complex nexus to begin to disentangle. we are trying to do this as best we can, consistent with the law. and we have worked to try to bring opening and change as swiftly as we can. had we waited to try to do it all at once it probably would have been delayed. i think our interest was in --
maximum extent at the outset, but i'm confident that the changes, including those regulatory changes that were announced today will further expand our ability to trade, to engage, to research together, to do things that are in our mutual interest. and while what is absolutely necessary for us to go the full distance is for the embargo to be repealed. we are doing what we can within the constraints of the law to change this approach. >> well, let me -- we have a few minutes left. let me just close with two questions. one is on the embargo. i know you have suggested that congress lift it and you've suggested -- >> more than suggested. >> -- and that our ambassador be confirmed. how do you handicap the chances of that getting done in the
lame-duck session? >> the embargo or the ambassador? >> the embargo, i'm not holding my breath for. >> the ambassador? >> the ambassador, i hope for. i realize a lame-duck is going to be a very short session with many things on the plate, but we think it would be very wise for congress to take this step. ambassador delaurentiis has been previously confirmed by congress. he is a career foreign service officer of the highest caliber. an apolitical appointee. and he is down there now doing the business of the united states. and by having him confirmed as ambassador will strengthen and enhance his ability to do the job he's already doing. so i know nothing in washington anymore should be called a no-brainer. but this comes as close as i can think of. >> yeah. well, we were all for more brains in washington, and we have many of them at the wilson
center. >> amen. >> and we watched painfully as it took so long to confirm our current ambassador to mexico. a good friend of the wilson center, and a very capable woman. so hopefully this, too, will happen. final question, legacy. president obama seems to be going to the places on his bucket list which are again places that showcase issues he cares about. he's been making many moves about national parks. and so forth domestically. he also has an international agenda and, obviously, this is part of it. where does cuba fit in the obama legacy? >> well, i think if i were wise, i wouldn't try to forecast the legacy with any certainty while we're still in office. i think that would be for scholars at the wilson center to research and analyze. but let me say this from where i sit in the heat of things. the opening to cuba was
something that president obama long thought would make sense. that our 50 years of failed policy ought to change. that we didn't want to reaffirm the definition of stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. so that was our hope. the primary impediment, or the proximate impediment was the detention of alan gross which was a horrific and unjustified, painful legacy of the past. and he suffered enormously. and job one was to resolve that. in the context, however, of working to resolve that, we saw the opportunity to do more and to change in more fundamental ways what had been a relationship that was not productive and wasn't serving
our interests. it was, in fact, hardly a relationship. and so we decided that given this opportunity, not only to see alan gross come back home to his family but also to change in p profound ways 50 years of foreign policy, was something we had to do to the extent we could at once. and that was the decision that we made, and that was the approach we tried to drive. and i think that it has transformed in many respects the way the united states is viewed in latin america more broadly. it's created openings and opportunities for improved relationships, even with countries that we had good ties to, but we had this sort of weight around us and hanging from each of those relationships and our larger relationship with the region. so i think this will, in all likelihood as i said in my remarks, be something that when we look back with the benefit of
hindsight will have been a wise choice, and a bold choice. and one that i hope we will continue to be very proud of. >> well, i am guessing that most people in this audience physically here and those in overflow rooms and listening in as we live stream this, sadly not in cuba, yet, are applauding the change. and recognize that u.s. leadership, even when it might have been late to this party, matters. and i want to salute you personally susan for your leadership. thank you for coming. >> thank you for having me, jane. appreciate it. [ applause ] >> please stay in your seats. we thank you for your cooperation.
c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up saturday morning, washington examiner campaign reporter ryan lovelace will talk about campaign 2016. and the growing divide in the republican party over donald trump. then mark mower, executive director of the sentencing project will discuss the voting rights of felons. and "new york times" correspondent michael schmidt will discuss the role of the
united states in yemen after the u.s. military fired missiles inside the country on radar sites operated by rebels earlier in the week, rebels in yemen launched failed missiles on two u.s. navy shipss in the region. watch c-span's "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern saturday morning. join the discussion. next, a discussion about government surveillance. speakers looked at how data is collected and shared and what restrictions are necessary for protecting privacy without risking national security. from the constitution project, this is an hour and 45 minutes. good afternoon. i'm ginny sloan. i'm president of the constitution project, and i want to welcome you all here today. just very briefly, i want to say how pleased we are to co-sponsor this event with google. they've always been a terrific
talking about. to date that debate has already been happening since the snowden revelations of 2013. the incidental collection of information about u.s. persons in the process of gathering foreign intelligence information obviously raises important fourth amendment issues, and we believe there's a role for congress to play in fashioning appropriate policy solutions around this collection of this information. so with that, i will turn it over to jake. again, thank you all for attending, and we're very much looking forward to the discussion. >> hi, everyone. how are you? thanks so much for coming. i'm jake. i'm the privacy fellow at the constitution project. as far as what we want to talk about here today, we're in sort of unprecedented age of collection and surveillance. something that one of our panelists likes to reforeas the golden age of surveillance. the constitution project wants to examine not just how we can
limit collection but also important areas of post collection reform opportunities. and what we see as one critical component of this post collection form >> legal and administrative barriers between different tolerance agencies and intolerance agencies in law enforcement that existed previously to 2,000. this was removed to facilitate information sharing. what we refer to now as giving up, the government the ability to connect dots. but this goal lead to law enforcement that has been restricted in surveillance capacities and intelligence surveillance that's always been in terms of the restrictions that existed.
can we create instead of the wall a chain length fence to replace it. but also restore the type of use restrictions and limits on law enforcement use of intelligence surveillance through reform that we have previously with the wall. so these are the topics with the excellent today. board of directors and partner at mayor brown's washington d.c. office. he leads the firm's security and data proxy practice. he's also part of the security practice group and the firms congressional investigation and crisis management team. and served as the general counselor and prior to his service, he served in the white house as a staff secretary and to the president of the united
states and i'll hand it over. thank you. >> thank you. thanks to all of you. thank you for coming. first let me repeat thanks to google for hosting this event and obviously it's interesting for many of you and thanks for focussing on issues like digital privacy and national security which are clearly at the forefront of everything that we're thinking about these days and a special thanks to jake for all of his focus on this issue for writing the piece at the constitution process that's on and chain length fence for intelligence that's inspiring him to organize this event and it's worth a read if you have him. >> no doubt there's been a great deal of focus for intelligence collection. there's been relatively less attention paid to the post collection treatment of intelligence. how is information used? how is it shared? how long is it retained? we had a few flashpoints in the
public discourse. think about information and think about the use of intelligence in criminal prosecutions but by and large issues about use sharing, retention are less sexy than the collection issues that dominated the headlines but given that we're in an era of big data and iot objects collecting data and social media, clearly use of data is the next forefront and use of data and intelligence is the topic for today. couldn't have a more qualified panel with us so let me introduce them and i'll get started. to my left we have becky richards. chief director of privacy and civil liberties at nsa she served in that role since 2013. prior to serving at nsa she worked at dhs in a variety of senior roles as the acting deputy director. and compliance regarding privacy
issues. thank you for joining us. directly to our left, peter is the golden age of surveillance guy in case you got that reference. but really he is the professor of law and ethics at the georgia institute of technology and also a senior fellow with a future of privacy forum. most relevant for today perhaps in 2013, peter served as a member, one of five members of president obama's review group on intelligence and communication technology. the independent group of experts that president obama asked to review intelligence activity in the wake of the snoeden disclosures. to peter's left, we have sharon bradford franklin. sharon serves as the director of the privacy and civil liberties oversight board. a role she held and previously
joining the board. she served for 8 years. she served as senior council for the constitution project and is very familiar with these issues. she worked on a wide variety of matters. cyber security and government secrecy issues and also served as a member of the cyber security subcommittee for the department of homeland security data privacy and integrity advisory committee. d-pac for short. to sharon's left she is the legislative council with the american civil liberties union here in washington with a focus on surveillance, privacy and national security issues. we kept you busy for the past 15 years. she worked in the chief of staff's office at dhs concentrating on national security and civil rights issues. she also worked in the office of the assistant secretary for civil rights at the department of agriculture and was on
council with the house oversight committee. you can see we have an array of perspectives and experience. with that, why don't we get started. most of you know the intelligence community has long consid considered information in the form of something called minute mization procedures. in short those procedures are designed to minimize as the name suggests the collection, protection and dissemination. these things are required by statute and by executive order. two of the most relevant places they have required and in executive order and other types of signals intelligence collection. so to make sure that we're all on the same page and give us a baseline could you provide us a sense of what those authorities
are and civil liberties and privacy protection for things like section 702 and -- >> thank you to everyone being here and for the invitation. basically i'm at a level set and many of you have experience talking about section 702 but we want to make sure that we're all starting at the baseline. 702 starts about minuimization procedures. we are meant to be targeting foreign persons outside of the united states and assistance of u.s. providers. this one is being generally referred to as prism. this is the u.s. providers and
the other is referred to as upstream. and the backbone of those u.s. providers. and specific requirements and on the backbone, there's no u.s. person and in upstream also we only retain the information for two years. in the prism, they can be done but those have to be done if we have articulated what we expect to receive in foreign intelligence and based on recommendations sharon will talk about we made some of those requirements more explicit in the most procedures. as a way of sense last year, as we reported in the transparency report, it was issued in may 2016. we did -- we had roughly 40 -- a
little under the 4500 u.s. person materials. that we wruzed against it and in a meta data context it was in there and it's non-minimized and non-content data. we did roughly 23,000 quiries. that just gives you a little bit so in both of those for 702 prism, the retention is five years. so those are sort of the basic outline of what those are and there's extensive training. we do a number of -- we have strong compliance program and then we have a reporting process where folks when there is a problem report those and we mediate it. often people will say if you have incidents then you're obviously not complying, you must not be doing the right thing. but really you want to make sure that people are recording it. if you have zero compliance you would be worried you had a totally ineffective compliance program so we want to set the
stage to understand that when folks have incidents that they are reporting those we're all human and we make mistakes and that's an important one. there's no u.s. person quiries. >> you cannot do a u.s. person query against 1233 data. it was outside of the united states. foreign information, a foreign country and unlike in 702 you are not allowed to do u.s. person queries. i say generally because there's exceptions like hostage or consent.
if you're going into a war zone or battle and you might have military concern you're going to want to do that. generally speaking there's no u.s. person query. we're retaining that information for five years. we need to overlay the issue in 2014. this is directive 28 that provides privacy protections to all people around the united states, around the world, excuse me. and that is -- what that has meant is a couple of things. in that document we are being very transparent so we're explaining how we were doing our business. we also put forward reasons we would use bulk information. we give six of those. those are things you would expect. terrorism, counter proliferation. threats to military.
those activities in addition, comparable safe guards for foreigners. a retention for that information is now explicitly five years before we could have kept the information if theory forever if you thought it was foreign information about foreigners. that's no longer the case. all of those things put together that you overlay so those are the basic protections and how they work. >> peter if i could turn to you next, you served on the president's review group. can you talk about the focus that you and your fellow members had on post collection issues? how dominant was it in your conversations and recommendations and your thoughts generally.
>> first just a word on this golden age of surveillance that got mentioned twice. wrote a paper published by the center for democracy and technology six years ago now and it's gotten kicked up as a contrary to going dark. lots of sensors now and lots of ways to collect information. then the answers are what are are the checks and balances. how do you build a system. could collect lots of data. upstream could collect a lateral of data. and there's lots of checks and balances built in and part of that review group was going in. we have top secret clearances and so one sort of nice feature about the u.s. is that we have people with clearances coming in from outside to see how things work and section 702 this is in
2013 after snoeden. an looking at concrete cases that 702 sealed like a useful program. and recommended it be shutdown basically. and made a very different view about the usefulness of 702. when you target specific people that are not in the u. s., that are not u.s. persons and you go through the procedures and compliance that exists. that's getting important information. we also had some concerns. and the concerns were about the uses possibly overtime. so one -- our set of concerns were really about ways this could be used against u. s. persons and maybe later in the talk today we can talk more about how much the concern should apply to our friends in germany or england.
so there were three recommendations that we made as parts of our overall recommendation 12. the first one was we should purge information when we find out about it unless there's a clear foreign intelligence value. if we find information in the data base that 702 has been collected from then we should purge it, the u.s. person part and talking to becky before now sounds like that five year retention applies to that. so 28 responded really to that sort of thing. we get rid of it after a retention period. the second has to do with something closer to the chain length fence idea. and chain length fence is sort of not quite as solid a wall. there's something that could get through a chain length fence.
collected under 702 because they were never targeted. you can't target persons under 702. if you find evidence against u.s. persons, we should have a rule. we shouldn't use that against the u. s. person and that, the idea there is if you want to be paranoid about law enforcement people, everyone has their own dial but if you want to be paranoid, this is great. let's use 702 to the maximum. and use it to prosecute a person. and get into this ability to do things against u.s. persons. one way to cut it back is to reduce the use of it because you couldn't use it as evidence in
court. >> and then the third recommendation has not been adopted and it would be a big thing if it were and the third recommendation and then i'll stop is that in this hypothetical data base that might be a fun place to go search if you were law enforcement against u.s. pers s persons. we should treat it as it was incidentally about u.s. persons so if you're going to go into this data base about u.s. persons, then you should have a warrant. there should be the right kind of trigger of the right level of cause for that. reasonably likely. >> of the foreign intelligence. >> foreign intelligence value so
there's been a reasonable showing of it having foreign intelligence value because it's a foreign intelligence data base. >> that's the standard for nsa. >> that's the standard for nsa and people around these and sharon will cover this. >> i have studied this on and off and i keep getting confused. it's complicated and hard to say it right and there's a complexity to it but the overall idea is there's a reason to have targeted against non-u.s. persons overseas.
>> that's perfect. what i would like you to start with is what recommendations have been made and changed thin things. >> so for those of you that may not be familiar with the privacy and civil liberties oversight board our agency is a fairly new independent agency within the exec queue tif branch created based on a recommendation from the 911 commission and to review counterer the r count terrorism programs and the board issued a fairly comprehensive report analyzing the section 702 program that included ten organizations. two are relevant to today's
discussion because they did focus on the process of mfgs that had already been collected so once you have the data how can an analyst go through and look at that and when they conduct searches using identifiers that maybe associated with the u. s. person and this was an area of concern and great amount of focus because as becky made clear this does not initially target u. s. persons. they cannot. so the u. s. persons are on the other end of a conversation with a target for example. so the board's two recommendations split out the fbi on the one hand and cia and nsa on the other because of different standards and different practices and with regard to the fbi it was a two
part recommendation first that the procedures should be updated to more clearly reflect the fbi actual practices including the frequency with which section 702 data may be searched when making routine queries as part of assessments and investigations and it would run against 702 data. the second part of the recommendation was that some additional limits should be placed on the fbi's use and dissemination of 702 data in connection with nonforeign intelligence criminal matters and i'll get to that in more detail in a moment. >> the second focused on the nsa and cia and they recommended that queries using united states personal identifiers should only
be permitted, quote, if the query is based upon a statement of facts showing that it is reasonably likely to return foreign spell jens information as defined and the board also recommended that agencies issues on written guidance and what information and documentation would be required to meet the standard and she was stating that she would not extent this to meta data queries. they can be conducted through the contents and the me at a data so she made this distinction in the recommendation. now for both board members actu actually wrote separately to further define their views and regarding the fbi this consisted of additional short statements
by each of the members explaining what they meant by the additional limits they would like to see on the fbi when they conduct those and on recommendation three with regard to the nsa and cia there was a further tdivergence. they wrote to recommend that they would further recommend requiring additional restrictions conducted for foreign intelligence purposes. namely seeking approval for united states person identifiers that could be used for such queries. they wanted a neutral and detached judicial officer approve these queries and that's a little different from the recommendation that peter was talking about in that all though both would seek a judicial
approval, the then chairman and member would have applied a lower standard and use the current standard that applies to return foreign intelligence information and board members also wrote separately to explain that they would not and noted instead that based upon the board's review of the current use at the nsa and cia that we characterize as rigorous the majority declined to recommend such a requirement i want to pick up on what has happened. in february of this year the board issued a short recommendation assessment report looking at where we stand on
implementation recommendations. with regard to recommendation two on the fbi the board found that recommendation has been implemented and this was done in november of 2015 the court approved -- revised updated minu procedures that incorporated changes designed to address both parts of the recommendation making more clear how frequently they would use these was addressed by certain footnotes that do appear in the declassified version of procedures that were released this past summer and with regard to the recommendation for additional limits. the text, the fbi implemented this including the appropriate text of footnote 4 procedures.
it's redacted in the version put out this summer but i have clearance to say it is there. in regard to recommendation 3 this was also addressed in november of 2015 when the court approved revised minute mization procedures for both of those agencies and both included additional language to design to implement the board's recommendation about the standard and the board assessment that did, indeed, meet that recommendation and those are are both available in the unpredakted in the declassified versions. the board did assess this recommendation was still being implemented because with the
cia, with respect to the me at a data query using identifiers they accepted and planned to implemented the recommendation as it refines internal processes for data management. thus the cia's new procedures do not reflect changes to implemented this recommendation with regard to me at a data queri queries. overall, those either have been implemented by the agencies or are in the process of being implemented. >> that's great. thank you. >> now you have participated in the discussions and you know what the agencies are doing and put out publicly. what do you see as the big issues when it comes to intelligence information from your seat is at the eclu.
>> first i want to talk about what's the world i worry about? and we worry about a world where there's a whole lot of collection not to protect national security or not to find information about an upcoming potential terrorist threat but in your every day normal criminal enforcement police would be required to go to a neutral judge and get a warrant. demonstrating probably cause that someone has been accused of committing a crime and we worry about that in a world where even if that information has gained and is used in a criminal court that person doesn't even know. they don't know enough to say
hook i think the nsa may have collected this and i'd like to challenge it because i think my rights have been violated. that's the world we worry about and i want to talk about why i think some of the procedures in inadequate and are leading us closer and closer to this world. we have been talking a lot about foreign intelligence. we're only keeping the stuff that has foreign intelligence value. foreign intelligence is an incredibly broad term. it could include a journalist overseas. communicating with a journalist in the u. s. about a drone program. it could include communications from human rights organizations and families in the u.s. that may have talked about issues surrounding foreign affairs.
we're conceptualizing foreign intelligence. more broader than the public thinks because when they think foreign intelligence they think stopping terrorist attacks and that's not what foreign intelligence means under many authorities. the second thing i want to talk about is okay now we have this trove of foreign intelligence information and we're going to allow agencies to run queries on it. they're not just running queries in cases where they may want to gather information. they're running queries on data bases that include the information in your normal criminal case. we don't know how many times because despite many requests we don't have a sense of how many of the searches are performed but what we do know is that it may be substantial because that data is co-mingled and i may do
a query and that might involve data bases that include foreign intelligence information and the third layer is now you have queried it and you want to use it in a criminal case. maybe to effect something else in my life. i'm now subject to additional search or wiretap or i don't get an immigration benefit i applied for. let's look at criminal prosecution. one of the most damaging out of those three options is we're not seeing people get notice in court of how the information was collected. section 702, prior to 2013 there was not one defendant that got notice. apparently at some point there was a reexamination of doj policy and some notice since that. not a lot but some. we don't know how that notice is being interpreted and whether,
really those provisions that require notice are making sure that everybody that's had information used against them knows and gets that so they can challenge unconstitutional surveillance. in other context we haven't seen an acknowledgment from the government that they have an obligation or duty to provide notice. under executive order 12333. if it's used in a criminal prosecution we don't know whether the government takes the position that yes they must expose that to the defendant that can then challenge it and i raise these examples to i think demonstrate the increasing evidence that an authorities that have been developed and on this idea that we need this information to protect our country against terrorist threats or proliferation and those authorities are increasingly bleeding into every day general law enforcement activities and there need to be
more to prevenn against that bleed. >> we have a range of perspectives and it can be easy to be dragged with particular authorities and questions. when lawyers think abprocedures there's a wholistic view. that's the legal approach taken. in other words was it an issue. do the restrictions on collection align with the restrictions of use, sharing, dissemination. so in other words viewing the use wholistically the implication is perhaps you need more restrictions on how information is used. i would be curious to get perspectives from this panel is that how we should be thinking about it generally? restrictions on use and sharing
and dissemination separate from how it is collected? if anybody would like to start. >> i would say two things. looking at the front end is important and thinking about the back end so to speak. we have to think about not just the quantity of information. we're not talking about 20 or 30 e-mails a year. million of e-mails and communications and transactions a year and it increases the likelihood that should a government agency decide they want to mine that information the implications is substantial and think about what is that protection and the intelligence contacts, the process that you have to go to to collect the information is less than would be required in a general criminal court. so for example the government is
never going to a court judge to say this particular target is permissible. even under 702 where the government goes to the court it's not an individualized review so you have to think about the lack of -- potential lack of oversight and restriction on the front end which then effects the back end and the risk that you have using that information is the types of collection we do, when we adopt certain procedures is that a disadvantage to our communities? let's take a hypothetical scenario where most of your targets come from a particular country. it may be likely to get information of individuals that have family in those countries and if we have procedures that are dealing with this data that
may have implications and we should think about whether that's happening and if it's happening what are some of the solutions. >> so, yes, absolutely the wholistic approach is what the board looked at and it comes from a number of sources. under the 4th amendment the board declined to express in that opinion as a whole as to whether there is a foreign intelligence exception to the warrant requirement. something that has not -- the supreme court has not yet opined on but look to the 4th amendment reasonableness test which is a circumstances test so what is the standard? how high is the bar, what do you need to show? that will have an impact for when and how the government may access the information and those
are relevant as to what they should look like. they reach different conclusions. it doesn't necessarily lead all decision makers to the same exact conclusions and so then chairman and member felt that because at the front end there's not an individualized determination made to the target and using that u. s. person identifier. now members brandon collins looked at this differently and they noted for example in the criminal context, talked a little bit about notice, in the criminal context if it were to get to that stage where the government wanted to use evidence derived from 702 they
did recommend that they would require such approval before it could be used in these contexts. they extinguished the investigation stage when they did not want to create greater barriers to that being conducted. but looking at that analysis and also noted explicitly this is the same kind of analysis we would do in a policy context and of course the board's role fundamentally under our statute is to look as a policy matter at are we appropriately balancing national security concern with privacy and civil liberties and this is reasonable.
>> we use this process today. we look at 1233 where you're sort of -- or even if you start with what is now under usa freedom act and we have looked at the totality and in various places a plied different space guards to protect u.s. person privacy. this question of the uses, it's important to keep in mind that there's this very difficult tension where we're holding our intelligence community and law enforcement community to no bad things should ever happen and so that puts a level of incentive and we want to think about how do we build those safe guards in and not turn around when the next thing happens and say well you could have connected these
dots because they were here it's really important to keep both of those in your head. we need to have both of these. all national security without any privacy left us in no better place. all the privacy and no national security is equally not going to leave us in those places. there's been a lot of conversations of use restriction and we see those in terms of things like you can only disseminate for terrorist related purposes. that's one of the first places we have started to draw those lines in this context and where
do you make sure that we're not using these i'd like to talk about limits in the commercial sector because they get talked about a lot over there and that might shed some light. there's the do not track process which is what are the rules going to be for companies. can you say please don't track me as we do it. the way the sper nekt works now there's a tremendous amount of collection that just happens logging your website visits. making sure that the advertisement is replaced properly. so there's an unbelievable amount of collection that didn't exist ten years ago and we didn't have the internet at some point. so if you're going to try to figure out what it means to have less tracking and more protections from the privacy you get pushed to limits because there's enormous logs that exist
from the way the internet works on the collection side and in a world where there's senators in lots of places we're going to have a lot of collection in ways that didn't used to happen how often are you going to be on camera compared to 20 years ago. that's part of why this conversation which is post collection use discussion that's why this is really important because in a world of senators everywhere and huge data bases that happen just because they happen and for a lot of reasons we have to have discussions. you can't avoid it. >> so this is a good set up for the next question i'd like to pose for all of you. we had a conversation about tayloring restrictions and how
that might be related. so if one starts to think about restrictions on youth or sharing or dissemination, what are the factors that are important? is it the nature of the data? is it how the information can be used or not used in certain context? is it the standard? we had a discussion about reasonable probability versus probable cause. what are the key vectors that we should be thinking about as important for the intelligence community to incorporate into these sorts of restrictions. >> you're willing to give it a go. >> sure. i think all the things you listed are relevant you know, one i think that really ensure there's some type of judicial
oversight when the government seeks to query information or use information is important. in the 702 context there isn't a ton of front end judicial oversight. people may differ on how substantial they think it is but the reality is they're not at least approving individual targets in 12333 you don't even have that so i think that the government seeks to query that information and it should be going to the court and getting a kour order for that. and i see that as one of the most important restrictions. the second is limiting the uses. i talked about this beforeful foreign intelligence. foreign intelligence is awfully
broad and we had these conversations during the usa freedom act. most people are are thinking about terror i feel and we need to narrow that and hone in on what are really the uses that the government thinks are most key and how can we have the type of dissemination and use we're going to have and we want to think about whether we'll have use in domestic criminal enforcement you should have that and i was shouldn't be using information collected for intelligence purposes for general every day domestic law enforcement because we have a process for that and law enforcement goes to court and they get court orders and warrants to do that so those are the top line things when we think about what is important. >> i would say yes to all of those. >> i knew i liked you sharon. >> so the nature of the data in
this context, communications there's been difference between content and meta data. now everyone here is familiar with this as well. section 215 that was me at a data and the board did talk about how that could also be highly revealing of the sense of personal information and privacy indications as well but there's a consensus that people treat content as being more revealing and have greater privacy implications so content is treated differently than meta data. you would draw those distinctions. how the information can be used
that's what they're all about. the fbi has the law enforcement mission and when you bring in the function you have much more front and center. people's 4th amendment rights. their criminal procedure rights if evidence can be used against them in a criminal proceeding so you're likely going to have different standards. i talked about the board members that were implicated. this changed some what with presidential policy directive 28 that becky talked about a little bit as a policy matter to provide enhanced protections to nonu.s. persons and the fact that u.s. persons are the ones who are recognized to have 4th amendment rights we have applied
areas where there's concerns and have foreign intelligence leak over into the criminal area and you can have lots of different standards of how strict you are there but those are issues that deserve serious discussion in europe they have some concerns and might get off of data in various ways so i'm going to talk about this. here's a reason to be careful. one is the 4th amendment applies but beyond that when you're thinking about checks and balances and surveillance you don't want to have your surveillance agencies going after political opponents so
when you have that attack on political opponents you could be on a slide down into bad things. that's a special reason in terms of checks and balances. i think what happened in the discussions with europe in the last few years since 2013 especially the europeans are saying hey we're people too. i'm german and i'll british, i'm french, we deserve to be treated like members of an allied rule of law, democratic society and not be the target of u. s. surveillance. you'd probably feel that way. why should they have open season on me. i thought we lived in a democracy. i shouldn't be a target like this so the push back from a reasonable place in european side has been don't treat our citizens as targets whenever you feel like it. have some thoughtfulness.
sure go after the terrorist subpoenas but don't go after the butcher and the baker and the candlestick maker we basically said we're going to expand it to our allies and now germans or french or whatever, have many countries be listed yet? so once there's the right certification but the point i'm heading towards is if we have our post collection debates in the united states i bet the europeans are going to say, hey, what about us? don't just protect u.s. persons but stop searches for criminal proceedings or for searching more generally. stop those more broadly. and have pretty much the same
protections for the european allies as well and i'll not sure that washington is ready for that discussion. i'll not sure people have worked through what would that mean and what is doable about it and maybe you can tell us that we know the answers but i think that europe will push back as part of the 2015. they're very aware. the european commission is very aware that 702 is up for renewal next year and the u.s. government hasn't even mentioned if you don't like 702 today wait until next year and you can weigh in on the process. it's going to threaten our ability to say u. s. persons only because for foreign affairs reasons we'll have some way to talk to europe about why they deserve the same respect for their sids as the u.s. gives to its own citizens. >> okay. so maybe i'll work my way down. >> all the way to the bottom.
>> or all the way to the top. did i hear that you thought we should have something any time we do a query or is it just on u. s. persons? because i'm not sure why we have a foreign intelligence agency if we have to go every time i have a foreign intelligence query i want to do. >> so i was referring to u.s. person queries. i think in the 12333 context. i heard you and others say they don't run them on content. i don't know if we have more information on whether they're run on me at a data but to the extent that they're being run on me at meta data that's also concerning. >> so i just wanted -- i mean, i understand that. i don't think we want to have an intelligence community where every time we're looking at
foreigners outside of the united states that we're going to do a query because you would stop the intelligence community i think largely there. >> the europeans might. >> the europeans might and those are going to be interesting conversations. they have a very different approach to what it is i want to make sure that we're not losing the u.s. persons protections for r that historically that hasn't worked well for other countries and we want to be thoughtful as we have these conversations that we aren't diminishing the protections that we do have in place for u.s. persons so under 12333 generally speaking there aren't u. s. person queries that are allowed and right now i understand when you look at all the different procedures that we have in place it can be
difficult to point to that so department of defense issued new guidelines for generally under 12333 in august. they're being now worked now that we have the broader document and you're not having to back your way through that process but you have to draw a couple of lines. it's not clearly obvious. we're trying to work on the next one. when we do training that's one of the big training ones. all nsa employees have to take a number of different training courses i take all of that training and i just fibbished it earlier next week because it's going to expire and it's these really important things.
but that is a u.s. person query and a key function. when i get to foreigners if you tell me i can't do any foreign queries, peter, what are are we doing? we have to have a foreign intelligence person outside of the united states. we have to document that. that's one of the requirements put in there not every foreigner is targeted under 702. you have to have gone through that process and it is not the bulk collection on all foreigners everywhere under 702 so we put that -- but because it's not that you have fewer
protections around some of the u.s. person inqueries. when we get to 12333 it's a broader collection but then we started to put more controls and safe guards in there. we have an intelligence community designed to protect the united states from my number of different issues and we need to have a discussion as policy makers about what you want your intelligence community to do. if we're not comfortable with the authorities we have given the intelligence community that is absolutely what we need to be thinking about as a democracy and that's when we have to think about how are the different forms of government really engaging in that conversation? a lot of conversation was had after snoeden about how much does congress really know? those are great conversations
and thought pieces we need. not everybody in the united states can have access to intelligence to the level and degree. we won't have any intelligence. the foreign targets are going to go figure those things out. i can't put all the good people of the united states over here and tell you what the intelligence community is doing and then say okay my list of bad guys over here you don't get to know this. it doesn't work that way. so we have to think about how do we build these in there's a number of overseers in this area. we have the privacy and civil liberties oversight board now. that's relatively new folks here. we have the fisk. we have the director of national intelligence and congressional committees. and then internal at nsa we have a number of folks that are
specifically focused on oversight and compliance in addition to the inspector general so one of the questions as we go through the discussions is we should say well are all of our oversight functions working? are we putting -- do we have too many of them? to we have not enough? are people held accountable and responsible for those activities? i've seen a few times folks say well if i had one more person checking to make sure if this was really the right target then we'll make sure that we're only, we have all the targets correct. it turns out people start to lose accountability the more people up the chain they think are going to find the problem. so how do we design these different activities. >> something we lost a little bit in the conversation. i think we lost what a large shift 702 fundamentally was in
the term, in the way it approached foreign intelligence collection and how some of the they're proving procedures, not individual targets. and you're able to target people for a much wider variety of circumstances. and i think that, you know, that's very irrelevant when we think about, you know, looking at this ap which you are, you know, the wording we used before, this front and large ap pe which you are and effects whether we think, you know, queries, you know, context for
example, or appropriate. thinking about protections need to be higher given the global realities of us sharing information with foreign entities, foreign entities sharing information with us and not wanting us to create, i want to make sure we're not losing that. we're in a different moment now in terms of collection and that effects whether we think about those programs. >> and debates about how technology changes standards, there's often, at least, two ways to talk about the status quo. there were communications let's say between france and pakistan in the old days and now the e-mail. it's a french person in pakistan, in the old days that would have been a 12 triple
three very few safeguards compared to the fourth amendment and now it's been raised up to 702. to the extent it's about foreign targets for people who are overseas, you can see it is raising the standards compared to what it use to be. but because it's being done in the united states, it's lowering the standards. so each side has a good claim for why they've lost something in this new thing we have since 2008 in section 702. >> i just want to say one of the things i think has changed for the good in this case is the greater transparency now. so the best term is for the unauthorized disclose sures by us is we've had this public debate and because of that very unique context and there being a lot of leaked information, the intelligence agencies made an extreme effort to try and
declassify a lot of information that was previously classified and in particular with the boards report on section 702, we were able to obtain public interest declassification of a lot of information and put out a pretty comprehensive report -- it's here. i was going to -- of that program. now, there are new leads details that remain classified, importantly, need to remain classified and this is a unique context. it's not that i would expect or even encourage that the intelligence agencies are going to declassify everything they do. but we do have a greater commitment to transparency. the -- and the creation of becky's position. the fact that becky is here on this panel is really, i think, a c change. and as we come into this debate in 2017 over reauthorization of section 702, i think the good thing to look at is now there
can be a very informed public debate based on a lot of facts about how the program actually has been operating and a commitment by the intelligence agencies to engage and have that debate, largely in the open. but i think that's an important change that should be recognized. >> i think there has been a shift towards more transparency. i think there are key facts and key pieces of information that are missing that we need to have this debate whether it's 702 next year. and one of those key pieces of information which, you know, becky knows about it's near and dear to my heart is the number of u.s. persons who have their information collected under section 702. this is something they mentioned they did have this information. it's something that civil liberties groups an members of
congress are key to have and how does that impact what are very real implications for people in the u.s. i suspect that we will also want similar information for some -- well maybe things have shifted and we're not now using 702 for and that's a good thing. it would be great to be able to test that over time. right. or are we really shifting a lot of our flux into 702. is the problem maybe not as big as i fear in others fear. and i think the only way we can really have that conversation and tests some of the things we all are saying is by actually having the data. >> before i open it up, please think of some questions, i will in a moment. i wanted to come back to this one question since we talked about it and since it's up for reauthorization next year and it's question queries for u.s. information that's been a flash point in the post discussion, you know, it's amazing how people's reactions who don't think about this all the time variy depending on how the issue
is presented to them. if you were to say to somebody, you need a warrant to target a u.s. person somewhere in the world for surveillance, how can it be the case that you can search on their name, in for example, for this sea of information and you don't need a warrant. it seems like a back door search loophole, which is a term of art that critics use. you talk to analyst like the place of nsa and they say we have the legal authority to collect all of this information, i can read it from front to back. i'm suppose to, i'm behind. i'm 10,000 pages behind. if i can read everything we just collected and i'm suppose to do that. how can you tell me, why should it be the case that i need a warrant to do my work more efficiently, that's the perspective an analyst might bring. i'll be curious, how do we help the public bridge what are two different world views and the review group and p club have taken and so, i'd ask you just
to think about or maybe articulate for folks here which version of the world should they pick and why. >> can i just briefly, the review group we finished our report near the end of 2013. the club is really fantastic and very large report on 702 happened after that. and i just have no idea whether we could have come out with exactly the same words if we had had as much study on 702 specifically as p club have had. i think we did flag it as an issue. i would say more it's an issue that needs to be resolved rather to say i know what the right standard should be. >> got you. and i'll add to this as we think about it and give you a few more seconds to think about it, we've move today a situation where now there is judicial authorization for queries. we've seen a model where we've moved to judicial authorization. in many ways it's a different
beast program. 702 is targeted voluminous. it's not content. should we look to the 215 program as a model for thinking about queries and other areas. >> i think your question just goes back to the totality of circumstances approach before and sort of how you look at that and what your view is of the front end collection and to what extent do you want to balance that with post collection standards and requirements and that is very much going to effect the lens that you see it through and how you want to -- what kind of standards you want to create and different people are going to see that differently. >> how would you defend to the person on the street, you need a warranty target, why can you do the search on my name. >> i don't know that i'm hoping for that conversation any time soon. what i was going to say is we're
relatively new into this constructive transparency with the intelligence community. you know, my job is new. i've been there two-and-a-half years. we now have a privacy officer at cia. these are new roles in figuring out how to be more trarns parent is going to be an ever sort of changing process and so one of the things that i think rather than do you sort of as peter said, you look at we've actually increased the amount of protections because it's under 702 as 0 we use to have it under the fourth amendment. one of the things i think is important is to make sure we truly are talking about the same set of facts to the extent that those are not classified and we really worked to do that. so whether you think you should have a warrant to do the u.s. person query or not based on sort of how we think about these things, what i think has been
really positive is the fact that we are now talking almost about all of the same -- nina and i can totally disagree on this. we're disagreeing based on our own policy perspective as opposed to truly different facts. that's where we want to be in terms of that transparency. i don't know if i can defend whether or not there should or should not be a warrant. that's sort of what the standard is today and whether that should be going forward or not. but we can now have that discussion, which i think is a really important aspect of sort of where we're going in that space. and we'll have to sort of test how trarns parent can we be so that we're not -- so we're not giving up means and mefd but we are able to say, okay, how do i bring these two -- what appeared to be dispart activity. i want to have surveillance, how
do we bring those two together and how do we build those. and so, you know, that is part of what our democracy is meant to do and so my -- i'm not going to defend one thing or the other, but i do think it's important that we're able to start having that conversation. you know, i think when we conceptually liez that, we have to understand the arm is very similar in those circumstances. if i'm a journalists and i'm worry about information getting out about my sources or i'm an attorney who is worried about attorney-client privilege, you know, the effect of intelligence has an effect on that and, you know, we've seen that people say that's we've seen documentation or reports after talking about the effect of knowing that the
nsa can collect information having a real effect. i think that's one of the reasons that, you know, we argue for higher protections and closer to that criminal context, for that person who has the effect, it is the same. the information, you know, they may -- their speech may be chilled. the information may be used in a criminal prosecution similar to domestic criminal law enforcement. i think we can't use the reality the effect can be the same regardless of some people. >> so your chance to ask some questions. if i can just ask you to speak into the mike so the reporters get it. if you can identify yourself, that would be great. >> okay.
there are a number of other factors that i was wondering if, you know, and peter, with your group, that you were considering when you were going through your reviews such as the impact on american businesses, on the global scale. we've seen, you know, you safe harbor kind of take a hit because of that. and i the impact of the u.s. reputation and reliability on being able to actually aspouse freedoms then not having other countries say, ha ha, you do this or that. with that part of your consideration, not just the privacy versus security, but also the multitudal other factors. >> you guys did look at that. >> so our charge for the president and the fifth thing trying to stop leaks. so our report has a lot of
recommendations about u.s. place. one of the ones and some of them are sort of obscure. one of the ones is that we recommended a process and white house has adopted it for sensitive intelligence collection including heads of state. that there be a white house process that's more thorough that includes state and includes commerce rather than having at the extreme low level saying let's go in and go after this head of state i don't think it worked that way before. now, there's a more thorough priorities process before that happens. and that's bringing in foreign affairs and other kind of concerns. another -- there's a whole set of other safeguard, some of them are in ppd 28, a lot of people in europe think the u.s. business get a commercial
advantage. united states does do for sanctions against iran, because otherwise it's pretty hard to enforce sanction. it's not used to be handed off to u.s. business. and it says that exclusively. there's been -- if you go through and i've got writings up whichever recommendations have been accepted or not. there are numerous ways i think administration has thoughtfully made changes to say, this is how we're trying to have an overall information infrastructure that works for multiple goals. we have to an internet that works for free speech, and for many many other things. our statute has the board focus on the appropriate and privacy and civil liberties. and the policy analysis in this context is sort of meshed one the fourth amendment
reasonableness test. i will note a number of our board members have engaged in conversations with leaders from other countries, particularly in the eu and have travelled and spoken on forum there is and they have pointed out in that context and in those engagements that other countries also treat their own citizens more favorably and the surveillance context and have also pointed out that none of them have an oversight entity and oversight board. so our nation is actually trying to take steps to conduct that oversight and to maybe we have one up on them in that context as well. >> by the way, i don't know what that description everyone sitting does to me. i'll look back at that. >> and i'll say say, i'm not sure. anybody would describe me as being the national security person here, you know, i guess it's all a matter of -- >> it's the name of your
employer. >> my name is richard golden. i have a question for nima. if i'm an attorney -- is the judge who might be hearing this motion, because it's a constitutional issue, is the administration's current policy any way relevant. >> it's irrelevant that you might not be able to make the notion that allows you to file the motion for suppression. if i don't ever get notice because the government's interpretation have derived is narrow and let's say incorrect from acle perspective. the individual defendant doesn't get notice, can't take it to their attorney and their attorney can never file that
saying this evidence shouldn't be mpermitted in court. so i think in that sense, it is very relevant how the government is interpreting derived, you know, i heard illusions that they use potentially use poisonous tree sort of analysis. we don't have the legal opinions that say here is how we interpret our notice obligations we know in certain context that government said actually we don't have notice obligations. so i think that -- i don't know if i answered your question. that's sort of how i think it's relevant to actual people who are effected by this collection. >> hi, my name is sharon, i want to talk about something that's prebecky richards, i'm so grateful that you are there. i was a target of prison surveillance. and then i kind of had a nervous break down and i just cried and i didn't know what to do. i tried to get lawyers and tried
to get help people saying you're not suppose to go about it and i went to the members of congress that weren't aware of this type of surveillance happening. i get it. but what i wanted to always find out are political and i found out in my situation, people that wanted to be future political appointees, people connected have access to this data. is there any way that we can protect that data, the present data on american citizens, they said, you're like a rape victim, you need to get some justice and maybe the only justice i can get is to make sure that political appointees, people that want to work in politics are get an appointee are not viewing prison data are access to be who is targeted. thank you, if you have any comments i'll be great. >> let me start and rephrase the question, i don't think there's any basis for a potential
employee to have access to raw intelligence in the community. you can tell me from your reviews whether that's true or not. but perhaps the underlying port of the question is how do we protect against abuse of access to intelligence data. >> i mean, that's a really important question that we worry about all day every day. we have a number of layers of processes starting with training our employees when they walk in the door with what the authorities are, what are u.s. persons, how do we protect those and then having compliance checks all the way through the process, whether it's something as two people have to put their eyes on it before we decide that we want to target an individual for collection or whether there's things like these technical sort of post query reviews. there's a number of these safeguards in place as it relates to specifically raw and that's just within nsa. and then you have a number of these oversight organizations that are then making sure that
what nsa has said they're doing in those protections are in place, are also being checked whether it's by justice or odni, whether it's by congress or now by the privacy oversight for it. there are a number of various specific oversight mechanisms put in place to make sure that how we're using the raw signals intelligence is consistent with the authorities that have been provided. and employees have the ability to talk to anyone with the inspector general, they can actually come to our office or our general council's office. if they have any concerns that either they have done something wrong or that they feel someone else is doing so that there's a place for people to have those conversations. >> sharon peter, we raise this idea political, being one of the things we really want to avoid. >> okay. i hope, i mean, what you're saying is a sad story and i don't know the facts of your
story, our review showed beginning around 2009 there was a big spike up in the compliance office at nsa and we also, specifically, did a lot of look to see whether there was any sign of political targeting of any of the nsa stuff. now, we had, among our five members, to people with years and years of experience in intelligence community and we looked for this, if we found political tampering that's super worrisome. we found no evidence of political tampering with the intelligence information at all. so i'll just say, i was looking and something i've worried about for years and written about for years. i found no evidence to think it's being used that way based on our review. >> and the boards review similarly do not find to any such abuses of that kind. >> i think that, you know, the question also speaks to a broader problem, which is lack of redress, right, when we talk about let's say people overseas.
the redress act is not going to provide that much, there are national security sessions. what are your omnis for redress. to me i think that's an area where we need to do a lot more work. >> yes, sir. hi name is ericson, thank you all for being here today. so, i heard quite a bit about so the recommendations for former rounds defining the conditions under which certain queries can be conducted. there's also been at least some reference made to internal training procedures, you mentioned post query review. i wonder if there's been any conversation about more post hock analysis of the way the data is being used. there many things you can do aside from querying it and for all the same reasons that collection has become ewe b--
themselves generating data about how they're interacting with it. have there been any recommendations made about how that kind of logging and other data can be used to actively monitor how the systems are being used, apart from some of the aggregate met tricrics that talk about reporting. they actually do investigations on how this data is used. thanks. >> you didn't. so i'll just say that there are a number of different -- within nsa activities that occur, also our inspector general goes through and looking at different ways that the information is being used to be sure it's consistent with the authorities. we also spend quite a bit of time in our office, as privacy office, by the staff, we're part of the senior leadership at nsa. we're not sort of buried somewhere down that i report to
the director, we look at some of the questions, just a query, i have a selector and it's pretty simplistic approach to doing p foreign intelligence. we want we have an equal responsibility to be consistent with the authorities provided. we have a number of different mechanisms, i think at the level of actually the use of the data. i think your second one had to do with are we looking at audit laws and seeing if things are being consistent with those uses and there are different situations that will actually be used. >> so the board in its report do not make any specific recommendations with regard to audit that is certainly something that we look at generally, at a higher level, though, one of the board's recommendations in the 702 report focused on efficacy. recommended that the government should -- for assessing the
efficacy and relative value, so not just the 702 program, but more generally are you -- are you getting what you're looking for so when you have any kind of privacy intrusion to make that worthwhile as you balance that should have some program itself should have some value in getting the counter terrorist, you know, in certain purpose for which you have this program. and so at that level, looking at the use, is it appropriate, is it effective is where the recommendation. >> something more specific and -- that i didn't check. you know, you have people do research and sometimes you're still in the process of checking everything. in connection with the loud
retrospective look. >> and -- and it's different. yes, that's to have it. so the board did recommend in the context of targeting that it should have more information about actual practice. >> so that's what i thought was perhaps responsive to the question. >> thank you. yes, sir. >> thank you. and thank you for the -- for a great panel. i'm adam. i'm the director of government relations with the american library association.
for those -- what do they care about privacy and for 140 years is the foundation of democracy, essentially, if you have a chilling effect, you don't have intellectual freedom. i've been given in the natural t tendency of the discussion, on the one hand, we have nima who i am proud to work with, in support of reform, of 702 and other traditions, saying, on behalf of the public, becky not unreasonably and with respect to the analysts say trust us. so how do we bridge that gap is the question that's going to pose. we certainly have a perspective and i'm asking this question from that perspective, which is as somebody who has been around washington for a long time and run all kind of issue campaigns
and done a little gorilla fighting, what you want to do is figure out what the other side is saying and how do you under cut their argue ms. becky, if i were you and i was thinking, well, we want to maximize, what maximizes trust, well what's the other side saying, warrants, so why isn't, my question is, finally, why isn't the intelligence community, maybe it is saying how do we absolutely maximize the use of warrants and so the people trust us more so we won't have to get a warrant every time we want to query information about somebody overseas. in other words, isn't the bridge for that divide processed in between from a trusted entity like the courts and, therefore, why wouldn't we want to maximize the use of things like the warrant as nima has suggested. >> as a practical matter as was noted in the transparency
report. there are 94,000 targets under 702 that are there. and so as a practical matter, i would agree with you that we want to -- trust is not an acceptable answer and i think -- >> forgive me, just to clarify, 94,000 warrants would be tough to arrange. with respect to u.s. citizens. >> i'm sorry. with respect to u.s. citizens. okay. so, again, so if we're going back to u.s. person queries and -- for 702, i will -- i'll just say that there are many different prospectus on it, i'm not going to give you one way or the other. but i hear what you're saying. you know, we had roughly a little under 4,500 u.s. person terms that were used in 2015, so i don't know what that would look like in terms of the
process associated with getting a warrant for every one of those or how that would work, so i i'm just going to not answer. >> can i pick up on the 92,000 for a second. >> sure. >> so the target of prison plus upstream according to the transparency report are that 92,000 in a year. so you get numbers like one in a million for something for people outside the united states depending on where you do it. what's the population of baltimore, 3 million or 4 million, that means 3 or 4 people in all of washington will be targeted in 702. so the scale there's been talking about mass under prison and upstream and matching that to three or four people in the whole baltimore washington area is a pretty different image. >> and i appreciate the scale and recognize, no person in washington would be targeted. >> i think i was -- i just was giving. >> if we were in paris, it would be ten, right, or whatever. and that might not be enough in paris given they've had some
problems there. >> that person might be in context with, we can't forget all the people. >> those are the targets, but that would be warrants true, also. >> if we had trap and trace order you would get everybody they talk to. >> absolutely, and you have a different protection in certain cases. >> yes, ma'am. >> i'm one of the drafters of 702. one of the things that we didn't -- when we wrote statute we were careful in considering and thought about a lot of things that have been raised here, use of foreign intelligence. but because the intelligence committee jurisdiction does not include judiciary and use in the law enforcement context, the ways in which congress thought about protections for u.s. persons were not as clear and were not as well articulated and carefully thought through as they were on the intelligence community side. i know p club has gone back and
looked at some of the cases where 702 information has been used in their 702 report. but i think the concerns about the use of u.s. person information in the law enforcement context and the failure to notice and how that information translates into -- how intelligence information gathered absent a warrant translates into a law enforcement context where a warrant is required, is the concern that makes most persons really nervous about the statute. and so -- i'm curious, did p club go back and look at these questions or do you intend to go back and look at these questions about 702 information and whether or not, not just in the law enforcement context, but in other contexts where rights are abridged like the right to travel, or 702 information was used, how was that used, was notice provided to the u.s. person, what were the appropriate protections there and sort of relatedly when will the p club release their 12 triple three rule. >> so i'll take the second one
first, i don't know. on the first one, as nima pointed out the administrations policy is to provide notice, at least current policy is to provide notice when section 702 information is used in a criminal proceeding. and as i mentioned a little bit high level before, this is an issue that split our board. all the board members called for additional restrictions on fbi queries of that -- that run across 702 data in the nonforeign intelligence context. so we're looking at foreign -- this is collected for a foreign intelligence purpose, foreign intelligence crime, that was, you know, a one side, but looking very much at this issue of nonforeign intelligence-related, more traditional crimes or drug crimes and so forth, how could this information be used when should an agent have access to
it. and all the board members they agree there should be additional restrictions. those range, members brandon collins wrote they required for supervisory approval for foreign agent who was not in that foreign intelligence space would be appropriate kind of enhanced protection, then chairman and member wrote that they wanted to have approval for those kind of queries. it's a difficult question and it's something that split our board. >> did you take a different view of the application of the constitution to foreign intelligence, versus nonforeign intelligence of crimes on u.s. soil in saying that, well, if you need supervisory review for foreign -- for nonforeign intelligence crimes because you thought there was a -- did you think there was a lesser constitutional standard because of some additionally weight given to the president and
nationals security base, were you applying the same constitutional standard for foreign intelligence crimes occurring on u.s. trail as nonforeign intelligence crimes. >> well, the entire -- the constitutional analysis is all under the reasonable totality of the circumstances test and the board made clear, though, that they analysis was similar to policy analysis did ultimate draw finite conclusions. in this context on the recommendation into looking at the fbi queries, it's how the members wave the consideration. so this information is being collected for foreign intelligence purposes, that is the predicate that they are showing when they are doing the collection in the first instance. so it is more closely tied to that purpose and when you look at a second dare use for a crime that is not a foreign intelligence crime, so it's more divorced from what showing you did make at the front end that's where they felt additional protections were required, because it was further removed from the initial foreign
intelligence purpose collection. >> can i just make a point about baselines and status quo, again, so one baseline would be any time the government gets about any american you need a warrant. another is the government often comes across evidence and all sorts of ways without a warrant. and so it -- when 702 is related to information you might pick up about a crime from somebody who is walking down the street, either in the united states or paris and the government might become aware of information that doesn't need a warrant there. you have to decide whether 702 any time it touches u.s. person goes all the way to warrant or whether some of it is you stumbled across. you can have different views depending on whether you think it's natural for the government to see evidence in front of their eyes or whether there needs to be a warrant to do that kind of access to information and 702 is in the middle because it's targeted for people information that's collected
that's happening outside the united states and so that's a long way toward not warrant land. and if you assume it's all warrant, then they'll be pushed back, you'll say usually they don't have to get warrants there. >> we'll have time for one more, sir. >> one more national press club, just quickly -- nima thank you for bringing up american journalists and sources et cetera, et cetera. so two quick questions, one is -- well, first amendment issues freedom, of course, addressed in any of the discussions that you all had and were there any specific thoughts about how to handle that. and also more particularly, did anyone bring up the issue of impending national shield law in which congress has been batting about for a while and the fact was held up by the snowden revelations, stalled the further discussion congress whether that came up, all of the second part is less important than the first, thank you. >> so keeping it explicitly sort
of addresses some of the first amendment questions and certainly what i would say is that those -- when you're looking at the question of privacy, the first amendment are naturally the first step. depending on sort of the uses, you really -- it's -- those match nicely in terms of doing the analysis and considering what those are if the government has not collected information that would be first amendment, you're not going to have sort of those same sort of first amendment concerns. you know, there's different places that will be more sbin waited and in that process. ppd 28 explicitly was putting that out there to address the foreign community in those questions. >> and one other thing, to the extent a lot of these rules are to try to protect our democracy against abuse by over surveillance, that has a lot to do with first amendment, whether you have free speech, whether
you can speak anonymously. whether you can and your friends decide what you want to do and take action politically. so first amendment protections were very much in our rapport as part of how you try to keep a democracy from getting abused by too much surveillance. >> i hope you'll all join me in thanking fantastic for lively resolve. editor of the blog ground game writes that on saturday new hampshire is once again donald trump's political home. his fourth visit to the state in four weeks and james pin dell is
joining us from boston, thank you very much for being with us. >> thanks for having me. >> what's going on in new hampshire. why has this state become so critical to both the clinton and trump campaigns? >> you know, a lot of ways new hampshire really matter in presidential elections if you were to go back to the 2000 election, the state was decided by about 5,000 votes or less and that really was rough vote if al gore had won new hampshire instead of george bush that year, we wouldn't be talking about in florida. it's been a lesson that both campaigns and both parties have been engrained in themselves ever since that pivotal year, but looking at donald trump, there is something highly unusual about all of his events and all of his trips here to the state. as you mention, this is a sports trip -- fourth trip in four weeks. it is highly disproportion gnat prepare -- compared to everywhere else in the country. this race is coming down to four
big states, big swing states, north carolina, florida, ohio, and pennsylvania. the polls there can make it very good argument that donald trump has a chance to win and can win a lot of ek toir ral votes, in terms of thinking over the past month and may look a little differently at this current moment. but donald trump has never led a poll in new hampshire, in the general election. and it just has four electoral votes. it does have a lot of people scratching heads. >> so in donald trump's quest to get 270 electoral votes wharks is his path to victory and what role will new hampshire play in that path? >> he's got two paths and they are getting narrower and narrower by the day. one is to sweep all of those four big states that we mentioned, i mean, ohio, pennsylvania, north carolina, and florida. if he does that, he gets there.
the other way is to in day two of those states and then a collection of a lot other smaller states, iowa, for example, he's doing well in. nevada, colorado, and then you have to -- new hampshire, that's the way in which he can do it. but, again, it's so disproportion gnat the amount of times he's been here. he's been here eight times since the california presidential in june, basically the kick off of the general election and for perspective, that is more trips than he has spent in states that are much bigger like arizona and georgia combined, with -- in those two states and a couple of others. you spend more time here than any other swing state outside those big four and he's had more campaign events. in new hampshire in the general election so far, mitt romney did four years ago and as your smart
listeners know, mitt romney basically lived in new hampshire in that 2012 campaign in his lake house in wolf borough. so it's highly disproportion gnat to see so much time here. one is that the trump campaign sees these polls showing her up by 4 or 6%, they think the race is tighter. second which i think is really honest, it's just closer to new york city. when trump went to schedule an event sort of at the last minute, he can get on the plane and come to new hampshire, he knows his staff can put together he has during the presidential primary, he can get back on his plane and sleep at trump tower. >> let me ask you about the senate race in new hampshire, one of a number that determines who controls the senate, which party, the democrats or republica republicans, how is that
impacting the overall tenor and what impact do you think it will have on turn out in new hampshire. >> you know, a lot of races are critical, you know, this race, as you mentioned, it comes down to really just two states, pennsylvania and new hampshire in terms of those contest, this contest in new hampshire is remarkable for so many reasons, it's the most expensive in state history, the most high profile race in american history of two women in terms of the importance of it and the both that's sitting u.s. senator versus a city governor both are well informed on a policy running really smart campaigns and the first question at every single debate in the general election for these two candidates has been about the presidential race, even as it was today. the presidential race is over shadowing everything that i just said really dramatic and impressive about this context. >> we can read your work online,
who covers politics and you can check out his blog, titled ground game. he's joining us from boston, thank you very much for being us. >> thanks for your time. >> watch cspan's live coverage between the third debate on wednesday night. our live debate preview from the university of nevada, las vegas starts at 7:00 p.m. eastern. the briefing is at 8:30 p.m. eastern and the 90 minute debate is at 9:00 p.m. stay with us including your calls, tweets and facebook postings. watch the debate live and on demand using at cspan.org. listen to live coverage, download it from the app store or google play. trz . >> as the nation elects a new president in november, will we
have a former president as first gentleman, learn more about the influence of america's presidential spouses from cspan's first ladies, now available in first ladies. it gives readers a look at personal lives and impact of every first lady in american history. it's a companion to cspan's world regarded biography series and features interviews. each chapter also offers brief biographies, 45 presidential spaces and photos from their lives. first ladies, in paper back, published by public affairs is available at your book seller and also as an e book. next white house council of economic advisers chair jason fur man joins other white house officials from the obama and george w. bush administrations to discuss health care policy and its effect on the u.s. economy. this was hosted by the center at george mason university, just over an hour and a half.
>> on behalf of the center at george mason university, i want to welcome you to this important discussion of the effective rising health care cost on economic mobility and economic well being. my name is bill, i'm the vice president for policy research at -- and on behalf of the scholars and the staff, again, welcome to this great event. it's not unfair to our times to suggest that we live in the era of health care policy. there's little else that i've heard about in the past 20 years.
every time i turn around is health care policy. few issues have dominated the past 25 years quite like this national health care policy debate that we've been having and that is clearly true of the past eight years. this policy debate largely has centered coverage issues and that concern continues to appear in the national health care discussion as evidenced by what is happening in the presidential contest right now. at this time the post aca world analysts are focusing anew on unintended fix from restructuring of insurance marketplaces to the economic affix of rising health care cost. this last topic is the subject of our program today. i have the growth in health care cost effected the economic welfare of insured and uninsured americans. is this increase in cost offset by the benefits of newly
extended coverage. as the rising cost of health care insurance effected the distribution of earnings in the united states, these will be the questions among many others that we will be discussing in two panels here later this morning. to get us going, we are extremely pleased to have with us a person who has been commenting on health care and economic policy in this town for a long time and i refer, of course, to robert samuelson, gentleman who doesn't need much of an introduction and encourages me to not only say nothing about him. as all of you, robert writes for the washington posts primarily on business and economic issues and has been associated with the post since 1977. he began work at the newspaper
in '69 as the reporter left and came back. he has become known for power commentary on economic and fiscal issues, as well as general economic commentary. robert received a bachelor's degree from harvard university and he has written several books. please join me in welcoming him to the podium. [ applause ] >> thank you, bill, i appreciate the short introduction and i hope you won't hold my harvard background against me. a friend of mine, rich thomas, the former chief economic correspondence news week where i worked for a number of years, coined a law, he said all bad ideas start at harvard. before i start, let me clear up a couple of other common
misconceptions, although i write about economics, i'm not an economist, i'm basically a newspaper reporter who was booted upstairs to write a column. second, although i have a famous name in economic samuelson, i am no relation that i am to paul samuelson nobel prize winner. i am told, however, that he did have a son named robert j. samuelson, if so, it's not me. now, let me get down to business. the subject of today's conference is actually quite simple. it's a question. can we govern health care sector or can it govern itself. the answer is not at all clear. governing means making choices, usually, unpleasant choices. if everyone agreed on everything we wouldn't need politics or legislative bodies, we could run that country by the computer
because there would be no agreements. but of course we do have disagreements and differences. economists have devised the convenient framework to explain how most material choices get made. they've divided most goods and services into two broad categories, public goods and private goods. private goods are regulated by the market, people vote with their -- vote with their feet and their pocketbooks. if people don't like old fashion newspapers, prefer to get their news from their tablets or smartphones are not to get their news at all and newspaper circulation will decline in perhaps one day disappear. i maintenancely like the result, indeed, i don't. it's the verdict of the market. its choices are dictated by consumer preferences and incomes, if you can't afford a mer say dez, maybe you'll by chevrolet or bicycle. most choices are made this way because most goods are services are private goods. not all.
we also have public goods and services that are provided by government. most obviously, but also much research and development and various types of regulation, regulation of the environment, financial markets work by safety and pharmaceuticals to name just a few obvious examples. how we decide, how much and how little what we launch is by political choice, elections and legislative action. if you think government is not spending enough on this or that public good or over taxing to spend too much on unneeded public goods, you can try to change the out come by voting for a new set of public leaders. this is, obviously, a messy, in exact and not nearly as decisive as the marketplace, but it is a process. so we have two well-defined methods of making most spending choices, the private market and government. the health care belongs to
either of these two groups to share some characteristics or both. half of our health care is supplied by the government. far more accurately paid for by the government. best examples are medicare and medicaid. and in this sense, medical care resembles the public good. on the other hand it also resembles a private good in upper middle class families routinely described as having access to better medical care than poor people. but it resembles neither in one sense. there's no obvious way of limiting it. people regard medical cares are right to be supplied to anyone who needs it when they need it. this attitude stretches back for decades. gallup pole in 1938 asked respondents whether the government should be responsible for the medical care people who couldn't afford it. response was 81% of the public said yes. writes are almost by definition,
open ended. i have a slightly different way of describing our situation. though it may just be another label for the word "right" in any case i call unethical. it is something that in the view of most people and as a moral matter must be provided for those who are sick, injured or worried that they might become so. to withhold care is immoral. unlike private goods -- unlike private goods, care should not be attributed to income and preference. unlike public goods we should not put a ceiling on health care spending. people should get what they need, when they need it to survivor and enjoy life. no one should be told on an operating table that a procedure has to stop because the hospital has run out of money or about to pierce some budget or won't be reimbursed by insurance company. health care is not that sort of public good. it is, as i said, unethical
good. this may seem defense and desirable approach for any individual, but it's less defensible and desirable for the society as a whole. it has led almost inevitable rapid es scalation because thers effect and are crowds other important and private spending. more total compensation is devoted to health care squeezing wages and salaries. other government programs are taxes and/or deficits are raised to satisfy the demands of prior health care spending. the original question i posed, can the governing health care sector is even more complicated than this implies. americans want three things from their health care system, first they want universal coverage along the health care as a write or ethical group. people shouldn't be deprived simply because they can't pay for it. next, they want total atonmy for
doctors and patients, doctors want to be anlt to provide whatever treatments of drugs, and other therapies they think desirable without being second guessed by insurance companies or government bureaucrats. likewise, patients want to be able to pick the doctors and hospitals of their choice. they don't want to be dictated to. and finally, americans want to help control, they don't want ever rising health care to reduce their standard of living, especially since motel -- most health spending to a very small portion of sick people. the top 10% of health spending cases account for 67% of the cost, roughly two-thirds. the health spending of healthiest 50% of the population accounts for 3% of the cost. the trouble is that we can have two of the desired out comes at any one time. you have yuan ver sol coverage, if we get doctors and patients
totally free choice, they'll almost certainly be hired there will be no reason to withhold treatment, diagnostics or medications that might do some good. if we withhold some of these treatments to control cost and restrictions backlash that essential care is being denied, the same is, again, true if we failed to provide universal coverage which despite obama care is what we've done. modern medicine is compound to all of these difficulties in two ways. technological advances and medical care are often more expensive they replace on the fact that there were no previous treatments and specialization of medicine, which often reflect these technological gains means that no one is truly in charge often means that no one is truly in charge of patient's treatment because he or she suffers from multitude of ailments and has as a result of multitude of doctors. i don't mean to imply, although
it probably seems to imply. and my wife has often told me i've a glass half full. i don't mean to imply the efforts to control the costs are futile. our medical industrial complex is strewn with rules and practices. or the conflicts between goals can be obscured because they are complex and not obvious. or the conflicts can be justified because they only limit waste, whatever that is, and don't compromise quality of care. still, the job is inherently difficult, because whatever health care providers, government regulators or insurance bureaucrats suggest is logically bound to threaten one of the three goals americans hold. it's been a frustrating process,
perhaps not futile, but certainly difficult as i suspect this morning's session will confirm. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you very much, bob. that was a great way of starting the morning. appreciate that. we're -- now i'm going to call to the podium my colleague, who is the senior research fellow and program director that -- of a programm -- he also has major responsibilities for a number of other issues at the foundation. i don't know what we would do without him. he frequently appears on radio and television. he's an expert on baseball history and that commentary is welcome this morning. chuck was a public trustee of social security and medicare from 2010 to 2015 and served prior to that in several
economic policy capacities in the george w. bush administration and received a b.a. from princeton and ph.d. from the university of california, berkeley. please join me in welcoming him to the podium. [ applause ] >> well, we are very fortunate this morning to have the opportunity to hear dr. jason ferman's insights on health care policy and its relationship to the economic experiences of individual americans. it's my pleasure to introduce him today to you. as many of you probably already know, dr. ferman serves as the 20th chairman of the president's council of economic advisers. he's been with president obama since the beginning of his administration, previously holding the position of deputy director of the national
economic council that. is a very important around wonderful position. i can personally attest. it can held only by the most brilliant of people. prior to that, he's held a variety of posts in public policy and research before coming on with president obama. he's done work at the world bank, a senior fellow at the brookings institution. he has had various stints in academia, including a position at nyu's wagner graduate school of public policy. his research covers an extremely wide range of areas, including fiscal policy, tax policy, health economics, social security, and domestic and international macro economics. he's the editor of two books on economic policy and holds a ph.d. in economics from harvard university. now, some of you may already know, and others might be amused to know that he's also an accomplished juggler, and not only in the professional and
intellectual senses, but also in the very literal sense of the word. this has special meaning for me, because a couple of years ago, my own wife gifted me with some juggling balls, along with an instructional booklet and some research indicating that juggling was an excellent way to sharpen one's mind. you can draw your inferences about what was implied there. so i've attempted to teach myself new juggling tricks, but has resulted in very humbling failures. so i think of this of my daily reminder that dr. fuhrman is smarter than me. so with that, help me welcome dr. jason fuhrman. thank you. [ applause ] >> i'm not going to hold myself up against a quantum chemist. but thank you so much, chuck, for that introduction. thanks for organizing this discussion today.
and i thought i would start with something really simple, because when we talk about health care, often our vocabulary flips around. i want to talk about the difference between cost and spending. cost is how much it cost to buy something, how much it cost to buy a shirt or a candy bar or a meal at a restaurant. and in those contexts, we rarely get the word wrong. spending is how much it costs for something multiplied by how much of it we spend in total on shirts, how much we spend in total on candy or restaurants. and that spends on both the price and the quantity. when it comes to health care, these two have somewhat different evaluations. as a general rule, any time we can slow the growth of cost, that is the growth of prices, in
this case, the price of an aspirin or the price of a treatment for heart attack, that's probably presumptively a good thing and something we should be happy about. when it comes to spending, price times quantity, it's a little bit more ambiguous. and in particular, it depends very much on the circumstances. there's been a lot of research on how much we get out of our health spending, and i think the answer to the question is, you know, it depends, and it's all over the map. some economists have talked about us being on the flat of the curve, that for each additional dollar we spend on health care, we're getting an extra screening, which at best doesn't do anything to diagnose a problem, and at worst, may even lead us to undertake some form of costly surgery that leaves us worse off because of
the side effects associated with it. and that world it's possible to reduce health spending by reducing the quantities without making us worse off and possibly even making us better off. but there's also substantial evidence that, for example, people who don't have health insurance are spending too little on health care. they're unable to get preventative care and the type of treatment they need. for them, additional spending on health care would be a positive, not a negative. so we have a health care system that, in some respects, is doing too little. maybe too little prevention. too little for the people uninsured. and in other cases, is providing treatment that may be wasteful, unnecessary, and in some cases, harmful. so a lot of the trick is both how to improve the efficiency of health care, the growth of prices, and then also look at
spending and how to have, you know, more of the good health care and less of the health care that's causing the problem. if you look at the record of the last couple of years, what we've seen since the affordable care act was passed in march 2010 is that health care prices, as measured by something called the personal consumption expenditure, has risen at a 1.6% annual rate. that's the slowest rate of growth of health care prices since the -- in over 50 years for comparable period of time. and that is unambiguously good news, that the price we have to pay for, you know, all the different things we want in health care is growing at about the same rate as overall prices,
excludeing the volatile categories like oil, which is something that historically hasn't been the case. historically we saw health care prices increasing faster than every other price. when we look at total spending, that's grown faster than prices have grown and premiums have grobe faster than prices have grown, because the quantity has grown, and it's grown in two senses. one is, we all get better treatment today than we did 5, 10, 20, 30 years ago. but second of all, more people are covered. in fact, millions more people. 20 million people have gotten health insurance since the affordable care act passed. notwithstanding all of that, what is really remarkable is that health spending itself has come in well below what was expected. if you look at the nonpartisan
actuaries that estimate health spending, in january of 2010 before the affordable care act was passed, they projected this year we would be spending $3.7 trillion on health care. instead, the latest estimate is that we're spending about $3.35 trillion this year. that's 9% less than what was expected. and that's despite those 20 million people that have gotten health insurance in the wake of the affordable care act. so understanding the causes of the slowdown in both health costs and surprise on the down side for health spending, what could be done to help it continue and its economic consequences i think are really important and there will be a whole panel here that can help discuss and debate that.
in terms of the causes, i think there's a variety. originally, people thought this was something temporarily caused by the reception. as we get further and further away from the recession, i think that explanation becomes less and less tenable. it's more likely something in our health system. i think a lot of things are going on. you see innovation in the private sector. you saw a slowdown in health costs going in the years prior to 2010. but you've seen that slowdown accelerate since 2010. i think in particular the way in which we reemburse in medicare has played a role. the way we've done delivery system reforms that are paying less for fragmented and often duplicate care, but instead are
paying on a more integrated basis that encourages providers to save money and improve quality, something we're now doing for 30% of payments in medicare with a goal of 50% eventually. and the way in which the private sector has adopted a number of these practices that we see in the public sector i think has played an important role. i think it's notable that the affordable care act is certainly a divisive topic. there's all sorts of really heated views on the question of the affordable care act. i certainly think it's one of the most important laws we've passed in this country in a very long time. others disagree. but a lot of these delivery system reforms that were in it, ways that let you, for example, design experiments that -- about how to reimburse in medicare for example, bundling treatments for
a given treatment. or reimburse on the bases of how care is better integrated. a lot of those ideas are really bipartisan, and were supported by both political parties. and we saw a lot of those ideas incorporated into a form of how we pay doctors within medicare but past congress on a bipartisan basis last year, and gives us a number of these same delivery system reform tools to use in the reimbursement of physicians that we already had in other parts of medicare. none of this happens automatically. a lot of what we have now are not a specific game plan of what we're going to do each year in health reimbursement for the rest of time. instead, what we have is the ability to conduct pilots, to experiment with different ways of reimbursement.
and when those are successful in either improving quality without hurting costs or improving costs without hurting quality, scale them up in medicare. a lot of what you're doing in medicare then can be faken advantage of and built on by the private sector. so it's not self-executing. it's something that will require certainly this administration has put all efforts into it, but will require the next administration and after to continue to take advantage of these tools to try to figure out how to better provide care and do it in a more efficient manner. this all matters quite a lot for the economy, which is the topic of today's discussion. in particular, i can think of four reasons why it matters. first of all, it matters just
because a large fraction of what we consume is health care. it's nearly a fifth of our nation's gdp. and right now in a number of respects, we're consuming it inefficiently. that may be due to distortions that come from public policy, whether it's the tax system in health care or public programs. it may be as some democrats -- or more progressives would emphasize failures in the market for health care. or additional research and development is a public good that has a spillover. so no one insurance company has the resources and has the incentives to figure out the full set of innovations, but the federal government does have that scale and can help
contribute an effect to that or indeed can help expand the production possibility. so you're talking about something that's nearly 20% of the economy figuring out how to spend your money within that 20% more wisely, will basically mean you can potentially get more for your dollars and be better off. so that would be the first economic importances inherently. second is it plays a really important role in the labor market, and in the short run, the evidence is, when health costs slow, that employers don't pass all of those savings onto employees right away. it lowers the cost of compensation and it allows employers to hire more people and results in more jobs.
the third economic point would be in the long run, i think the savings -- i think health costs passed through from employers to employees. it may seem as if the employer is paying part of the premium, but they're paying you a lower wage. so really it's all coming out of your pocket. so if you slow the growth of health cost, that helps increase the pace of growth of wages and raises income growth, which is one of the challenges we've had as a country for many decades. and then the fourth and final way that health costs and health spending matters a lot is it's a substantial and growing part of the federal budget. and the federal budget, while the deficit has come down a lot over the last six years, that deficit is projected to rise again in the future, and we have, going forward, spending
that exceeds revenue. to the degree that you're able to bring down the growth and the cost of health spending, you can help better align those two and have fiscal sustainability. and that's part of what the affordable care act is a down payment on, lowering the deficit over time by trillions of dollars over the coming decades. but a lot more work remains to be done both on the health side and in our judgment in a balanced fashion with additional revenue to deal with our budget problems, as well. so i think it's through no accident that health care has been a major focus of some of the brightest minds in economic policy and public policy for the last many decades. it's a really vexing and complicated issue. it's a really important issue to the overall economy, to the job market.
and to our fiscal situation. but i think it's one where we can make progress and we can make progress drawing on ideas from across the political spectrum to inform our delivery system, to give the private sector more incentive to adopt those reforms and get more of the good spending, less of the unnecessary and wasteful spending and slow the growth of prices. in your next panel, you'll hear from four of those brightest minds helping to figure that all out. thank you. [ applause ] >> well, thank you very much, dr. fuhrman, for getting our first panel off to such a got start and proposing some interesting questions that we'll now have the opportunity to discuss. i would like to ask our four panelists to come and join me on
the stage and we'll get going. >> well, we have a very interesting first panel for you. it's my privilege to act as moderator. i'll try to be as unobtrusive as possible. as we have talked about, we want to discuss the various ways in which national health care policy influences fundamental aspects of americans' individual economic well-being. each of our experts is going to start by giving brief remarks on
the order of 10 minutes or so and we'll open it up for questions and unleash what i believe will be a very interesting and informative question. sitting directly to my left is dr. douglas aikens, president of the american action forum. he's probably best known to most of you for having served in 2003 to 2005 as the sixth director of the congressional budget office. prior to that time, he was the chief economist on the president's council of economic advisers, and also where he had previously worked from 1989 to 1990 as senior staff economist. he's built an international reputation as a scholar doing research in areas of applied economic policy and entrepreneurship. at syracuse, he was the trustee of professor of economics, and
associate director of the center for policy research. long before that, he came up through the ranks of the richland township public school system in pennsylvania. our second panelist, dr. jared burnstein, senior fellow with the center on budget and policy priorities, where he's been since may of 2011. he served from 2009 to 2011 as the chief economist and economic adviser to vice president joe biden. he's well known to many of you as having served at the white house, including federal and state, and he's the author of numerous books, including his latest "the reconnection agenda,
reuniting growth and prosperity." he's a frequent on-air commentator and hosts his own blog. and holds a ph.d. in social welfare from columbia university. our third panelist, jim capretta is a fellow at the american enterprise institute where he holds the milton freeman chair. there he studies health care, entitlements, as well as global trends, aging, health and retirement programs. he served as associate director at the white house's office of management and budget from 2001 to 2004. again, i had the pleasure of working with him there. he was responsible for the portfolio that covered health care, social security, welfare, labor and education issues. prior to that, he was the senior analyst at the u.s. senate budget committee and the house committee on ways and means. he was a senior fellow at the
ethics and public policy center. he has a masters from duke university and a b.a. in government from notre dame. continuing, we have matt feebler, chief economist at the council of economic advisering. he specializes to a large degree in health care economics. he served as senior economist, and has a ph.d. in economics in economics from harvard. before that, received a b.a. previously, he worked at the center of budget and policy priorities. as chief economist, his expertise informs not only health care policy, but every aspect of budgetary and economic policy. with that, i would like to turn it over for the remarks of our first panelist. >> thank you. thanks for the chance to be here today. i'll remind chuck that if this goes poorly, i have his prom
picture. >> it was the '70s. >> it was a real low point for everyone. this is clearly an important topic, and i think what's interesting is we have these sort of two very important problems in the u.s., one of which is poor economic growth and the second is the budgetary outlook. on the economic growth front, from the end of world war ii to 2007, we grew about 3.2% a year. but even with population growth, the baby boomers and so forth, the economy grew fast enough that gdp per capita doubled roughly every 35 years. so you can imagine seeing the standard of living double, and that was the route to the american dream. the projections now are that the u.s. economy are going to go 2%
of the year. this doesn't double for roughly 70, 75 years. so the american dream is disappearing over the horizon. at the same time, we have a budget outlook which is quite daunting. it's still true that whoever wins the 2016 presidential election will inherit a budgetary outlook whi, 16% of t deficit will be interest of borrowing. so we're heading into a death spiral, which is unacceptable for the nation. health care lies at the heart of this.
on the growth front, it's an enormous fraction of the economy. long-term growth is griffin by how many workers do you have and more importantly, how much does each worker produce. that's productivity, and the health care sector is a low productivity sector. as jason mentioned, with haeed a health care sector that's characterized by spending where we spend too much on some things, too little on others and misuse a lot of spending. so that leads to a low productivity sector. as i'm an economist, you want to try to focus over the long-term on getting better productivity growth. that should be a fundamental challenge to the health sector. it's also true that if you've got a 2% growth rate and roughly 2% inflation, the resources in dollar terms are about 4% a year. if you look across the array of
stop doing the misguided payment policy. we don't know really where to go on the improving payment policies. what's interesting to me is that i think there's a consensus, whether they realize it or not, across the spectrum on what the future looks like. on one side of the aisle, it's called the independent painted a visery board and if medicare gets too big, you have to stop it from growing. you should bundle things, and they're just going to build bundle by bundle to better care. so budgets, bundling, and quality outcomes. the budget is -- you say this is how much you get for this senior, and you have a bundle, it's called everything. you give them an insurance
package and you cover everything, and you have a quality metric, but you pay for quality outcomes in exactly the same vision as the democrats have. so i'm optimistic that we can look these sort of two competing visions up for reform and make a lot of progress in years to come in having a health sector with higher value and better productivity. >> terrific, thank you. dr. burnstein? >> i'm going to speak from the podium, because i have some quick slides. this is a very different quick little fautalk here. i want to bite off one little piece here, which is the affordable care act, and jobs. here if my presentation is a success, the next time you hear somebody say the aca is a job killer, you'll walk away in disgust, because it's not.
there's no evidence to support that. and so that's what i would like to take you through in the next couple of minutes. i wrote a longer piece on this a while ago, and my motivation was partly driven by the fact that when we were working on this, i can tell you that the many people involved never thought as the aca as a jobs program. so the idea that we would defend it as a job creator is certainly not what was intended and not what i think has been achieved. so i want to be very clear that i'm not saying the aca is a jobs creator. outside the health care sector, if you're going to newly cover 20 million people, the reason i thought the aca didn't have much of a case to -- for this
accusation of job killer is because the employer mandate affects few employers. about 30% of workers are in firms that have less than 50 full-time equivalents, so they don't face the mandate. of the 70% that are above 50 so would face the mandate and would employment disen sentive, 95% of them are already offered coverage. if you look at the percent of workers right on the margin of that 30 hours per week, under which the mandate would not be applied, it's a fraction of a percent. so looking at the magnitudes of those who would be affected -- whose employment would be affected by the employer mandate, you wouldn't expect much traction there. then you have to ask about the impact of subsidies.
subsidies fade as income rises. but on the other hand, the high marginal tax rate on medicaid, which would lead folks to stay on medicaid pre-aca, that has been very much diminished this states that have taken the increase. so long story short, it's really an empirical question. so in the next five minutes, i'll show you the slides that look at the impeeric. on the left side, each dot is a state. and on the x axis, we have a measure of obamacare's penetration, which is the increase in insurance. the increase in the share of people in the state with insurance that's plotted against employment growth. if you expect a greater traction in obamacare, greater penetration from obamacare was a
job killer, you would expect that correlation to be a negative one. in fact, it's a positive one. now, again, a lot of things are going on. a lot of moving parts. one of the things that's happening is this a period of significant job growth. and lots of people with jobs have employer sponsored insurance. so in some sense, a positive correlation is baked in the cake. so ben spielberg, who is here, we took out the employer sponsored insurance from each dot, from each state and are now looking at insurance coverage on the right side that wasn't esi. and there the slope is flatter. but it's still a positive slope. again, i think that what you're kind of looking for here is, is there a negative correlation? so far the answer is no. another little test is to ask yourself where has job growth been? what is the comparison of job growth and states that took the
medicaid expansion and states that didn't? and you can do this two ways. you can either just take each state as an experiment and say what happened in one state versus another state? the states that took the expansion, that's their growth rate in 2014 and 2015. by the way, your choices don't matter here as long as you're starting when the aca came into the system. there you see the bars are essentially at equal height. now, you might say i don't want to treat every state as a single experiment, i want to wait by individuals. so you want to say essentially that i'm doing this experiment in the first place with the probability of scholars reaching into an urn and picking out a state and saying based on whether you took the medicaid expansion or not, has your
employment growth rate been different than states that didn't? the answer is no. the second case, you're reaching in and pulling out a person. in that case, it doesn't make any difference. so the results are all the same. now, where there's really an incentive here is the idea that you have an incentive as an employer to shift people to part-time work to avoid the mandate. therefore, what we should seal is an increase in involuntary part-time work. so some people have said it's not a job killer, but it's moving people from full-time to part-time work. not so. what you see here is the blue line is the actual share of involuntary part-time workers, and that's been falling since
the expansion got under way. of course it has. so you have to ask yourself, is it falling more slowly than it would were the aca not in the picture? i measured the model up to before the aca began and forecasted it forward and you see it's the same. so based on a counterfactual, at least in this simple exercise, the part-time involuntary share is falling like it always does in a downturn. this is very interesting but dense slide. so don't try to read all the words on this. i just wanted you to look at the circled part, which asks employers themselves, from a survey that was just completed, this is 2016. if you look at firms that are
large firms with 200 or more workers, or all firms, which is 50 or more ftes, the part i circled, the top part shows what share of these surveyed employers changed job classifications from part-time to full-time so that employers -- so that their workers could be covered. and in fact, that was 10% for large firms and 7% for smaller firms. so that was part-time to full-time, exactly the opposite of the predicted dynamic. and, in fact, there were a smaller share, 3% and 2%, that went the other way. so you could argue that they were responding to the incentive. but the magnitudes there are far smaller. so in conclusion, no evidence that the ac sarvea is a job kild little evidence that it's shifting anyone from full time to part-time work. thank you. [ applause ]
>> thank you. jim capretta. >> thank you, chuck. glad to be here for this very important event. i do think it's an interesting way to frame up this question and talk about it. it's an interesting way to look at the problem and of course, i think probably the most important way to look at it, which is we don't want a health system that in some ways makes our economic process pecks worse off. it should be working in tandem to improve our prospects. the question is, how are we doing, what are the problems and what could be maybe done as a remedy? let me just start by saying that the obvious point, which is that an additional use of resources on health is not necessarily a bad thing. if the opportunity presents itself, and one has earned an
thing. the second aspect is we wouldn't really question this if we knew and felt and understood that the use of resources was taking place inside of a functioning marketplace, to the extent the people in a free market that is working well are using additional resources on health, we would say good. that means that they found that's better than an alternative use and we wouldn't question it much. for a lot of different reasons, and we've already tiptoed up through here today, there's plenty of reason to believe that the united states doesn't have a functioning marketplace for health services. the united states government subsidizes health insurance enrollment through medicare and medicaid, but as doug mentioned, through the tax preference through employer paid premiums. so you start off with the fact that the vast majority of the
count country is enrolled in health insurance because of a large subsidy associated with that enrollment. so the price of the insurance has been reduced substantially through governmental policy. the second thing that's going on, of course, is that the government has gotten very involved in regulating the terms of the use of services and also the prices that are paid in many different circumstances. the federal government through the medicare program and the state government through the medicaid program. so a large portion of the use of services by patients is governed by a regulatory structure that has put in place in some cases very arbitrary limits on what the prices that are paid for services. so we don't have free floating
prices in a normal way in a health system by a long shot. so the result is that, for a lot of different reasons, one can look at the system of health service purchasing in the united states and say it's not a, of course, a functioning marketplace in the normal sense, as robert samuelsson indicated, it's not a government or private market. it's sort of some mixture of the two, but in some ways, a dysfunctional mix of the two. which is why many observers of the health system come to the conclusion after looking at all of this to say, yes, we wouldn't normally object to someone spending some additional resources on health if we thought it was a good use of money. but when we look at what's going on, it seems like there's a lot of waste just by objective observation, that if someone was spending their own money for some of these things and they were told, you know what? if you spend that $500 on that
additional utilization of health services, it's more likely to make you worse off than better off, most people would say why spend $500 on something that's going to make me worse off than better off? but believe it or not, a lot of studies say resources are being spent on things that tend to push people to adverse health rather than better health. so it's a complicated situation because of the entanglement of government policy with the normal aspect of deciding whether something is being spent in a good way or not. when health spending is distorted and low-value services are purchased by consumers or through the insurance plan paying for them, premiums are artificially higher than they should be. therefore, people are spending their own resources indirectly
on the premium for insurance. that means that they have those less resources to spend on things they would have valued more than low-value health care. the second thing is that we have a major distortion in our fiscal situation, that if there is this much waste going on in the health system, then our fiscal situation is a lot worse off for not very good reasons. because the united states government drew four avenues, again, the tax exclusion, medicare, medicare, is basically subsidizing most people now into health insurance. and it's putting our fiscal policy into a much worse position than it needs to be. taxes are therefore higher than they need to be. deficit spending is higher than it needs to be. people are internalizing the future fiscal disaster doug
alluded to, to some degree, in their current purchasing assumpti assumptions. so there's lots of reasons to worry about the distortions that are associated with poor allocation of resources in the health system. often the united states debates on health care almost always boil down to -- no matter where it starts, you can figure out what's going on by trying to understand is the policy that's being proposed to sort of correct and move things in a certain direction, does it pull more towards the government deciding how to mix this allocation of resource problem, or does it pull more toward trying to have the market function a little better with consumers making some better decision making about the use of the resources.
washington and policymakers and the health care community are divided on that question. so a lot of people believe it's a hopeless cause, going back to a lot of theoretical thinking about this. it's a hopeless cause to have a functioning market if by definition the government is going to have to get involved and do the best it can to weed out low value care. which is why you have in the affordable care act, many measures that have been enacted over 40 years, lots of interventions where the government is trying to decide is this going to be a good use of resources, should the price be higher or lower. so the government is knee deep into this. because a lot of decision making has been made to say yeah, it is hopeless, let's have the government regulate it and decide. on the other hand, there would be people like myself who say it's true that it's going to be
difficult to have a functioning market in the health sector, but we better try, because the alternative is lots of misallocation by government regulation rather than by the marketplace itself. so if you look at what the government is doing in the health sector, there's not a lot of good evidence -- in fact, there's lots of evidence to the contrary, that it gets the answer right. that it gets the prices right in medicare regulatory policy and the decision making about how to steer physicians and hospitals to organize themselves, as they're trying to reform. there's not a lot of evidence that the government knows the right answer, either. it's a complicated thing to deliver a health service to a patient. so this is the conundrum we face. i will conclude just by saying that the -- there's a famous paper on economics on the many
reasons why the health system does have problems functioning in a totally free marketplace. i agree with much of what's in that kind of assessment. on the other hand, there's also lots of empirical studies that show that people behave in the health system kind of like you think they would when presented with choices. that they tend to like lower cost, high value health care. and that when they're spending their own money, they're much more judicious with it than when they're spending someone else's money. and so some of the normal rules of a market economy do apply in the health system. i think we would be better off trying as much as possible to move more in that direction opposed to relying entirely on the government. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for having me. so i want to spend the second half of my remarks circling back
on the main thread that i think has run through the prior remarks about how to solve this sort of fundamental question how we're getting value for our health care dollars. but i want to touch on one item. i think one other sort of important way in which health care costs impact family's economic hilives is the large, catastrophic expenses and corresponding effects on financial security. so i think it came up in the opening remarks, and most people here probably know, on any given year, 5% of the population will account for about half of health care costs, which means in any given year, a small number of families are potentially facing extremely large health care burdens. so in thinking about economic consequences, that is something that families don't have effective protection, it's going
to have large consequences for them. they're going to need to forego medical care or other valued goods and services. and another thing that recent research has emphasized that in some cases they are going to get that medical care, but they're not going to be able to pay those bills. those things are going to be passed through to collection agencies and it's going to impair family's access to credit in the future to buy a home or a car. so this is one area where policy has a direct role in ensuring that families are well protected against catastrophic costs. discussions often are focused on expanding insurance coverage and we have good evidence that insurance coverage is a good way of protecting people against catastrophic expenses.
only have to go back to 2010 that 1 in 6 workers in employer coverage had no limit on their annual out of pocket spending. it's very hard to believe given that fundamental purpose of insurance is to protect people from tail risks, that that was a market outcome. there are good reasons to think this is an area where market outcomes might not be efficient. you know, an out of pocket maximum is very likely to appeal to sicker individuals relative to healthier ones. so this sort of adverse selection pressure is on that type of out of pocket maximum are likely to lead to it being underprovided in a private
market. we also know that thinking about low probability events is a place where consumers often struggle. and, again, we're talking about these catastrophic events that are going to affect a small fraction of the population each year, it is plausible this is something that would be underprovided. so this is another example where sort of policy has a role, the affordable care act requires that all private insurance policies, regulatory intervention of the type that is talked about, and a place where we think is market failure, the aca required all private insurance policies to include an out of pocket maximum. and the spread of out of pocket maximums and employer coverage since 2010 mean there is's an
additional 20 million people now enrolled in policies that have out of pocket maxes. so i say that just mainly to emphasize obviously can't require out of pocket maximums again, but an important dimension is how we're protecting people and doing that is more than just a training coverage. switching gears, i want to agree with what's been said, that the most important way which the health care sector affects the broader economy is by consuming resources that could be used for other purposes. and as jim said, that's not necessarily a bad thing. the important thing is we're getting value for those incremental dollars. so the question is how to do that. as jason alluded to in his opening remarks, there were hopeful indicators that we're making progress on that front.
we've also seen sort of encouraging signs of improvements in terms of other things. but there's clearly a lot more to do. i think the interesting thing is in some ways, the two items at the top of my list has more o r overlap, which is i think the sort of top of the list is continuing the progress on payment reform in medicare. i think it's the sort of failings of traditional payment systems, in terms of encouraging by orienting payment around hospital emissions. i think the administration has
made a decent amount of progress in deploying payment models. if you can sort of provide that overall bundle of care more efficiently, you can share in the savings and we're going to hold you accountable for the quality outcomes you are achieving. earlier this year, about 30% of traditional -- were mostly accountable care organizations. that's up from virtually none about six years ago, but we still got to find ways to tackle that additional 70%. i do want to say that i think that's a strategy -- i agree that i think medicare is a good place to start here in some respects. i think it's a strategy that has
implications for the system as a whole. we now have lots of evidence that when a patient comes in, the first thing a physician asks, is this a medicare patient or private insurance patient. if you're a private patient seeing that same doctor or that same hospital, you're going to see improvements in the type of care you're receiving, as well. i think the other thing we're hs getting increasing evidence of is when medicare changes its payment system, either the he feel or the structure, that tends to be adopted by private payers, as well. so payment reform in medicare is a way to drive changes system wide if the way care is incentivized. and then i think the final piece is this, is that we know the broad sweep of history, a big
part of what drives spending is changes in medical technology. to the extent that medicare is paying in a way that in places at least encourages use of low value care, that's going to create incentives for the development of medical rnd to skew towards lower end technology. the other sort of policy piece that i think is really important is retaining the affordable care act, or what's commonly known as the cadillac tax. -- from discouraging private
given those two facts, should we be focusing less as a nation on expanding the raw numbers of those with comprehensive coverage, and should we be focusing more on simply limiting the catastrophic exposure of people now currently with or without insurance? and i guess that's the first part of the question, which is a yes or no question. the second part is, if yes, how would we go about doing that? anyone want to take a crack? >> yeah, i think you're on to something there. i do think that the public interest really is making sure that everybody in the united states, as much as possible, is enrolled in an insurance plan that protects them against a major medical event, where i agree some of the literature would indicate some inability of the consumer to understand the ramifications of such a huge event on their finances.
predicting actually it turns out that it's true that, you know, 5% use 60% of the resources, but it's a little harder to predict who that 5% is going to be. it's not the same 5% every year, and a lot of people get cancer, that's a major medical event. so i think the policy should be directed as much as possible in that direction. also, you can do that in a way where people then have a more -- on the margin, an incentive to buy a plan in the event they do have a catastrophic event, instead of unmanaged, open ended care, they enroll in a policy that says if you have a major event, we're going to have an integrated system of some sort. that would be the best sort of
public policy on goal. and then, you know, below that, i think there's been an overemphasis on trying to design every possible permutation of primary care, other thing where is the evidence is weaker that we can know in advance that an intervention is going to definitively push people towards better health over time. so i think a little more consumerism, market driven approach there would do some good, as well. >> i might disagree with the view that is sort of the primary focus should be on catastrophic protection. i think catastrophic protection is really important. i do think if we think that catastrophic policy is one that has an out of pocket maximum of $7,000 or whatever, which is the sort of single policy maximum in the aca, for manyam
that's just too much out of pocket exposure. we know economic models, you write them down and people develop these savings, that would be the shock that they're able to bear. in practice, many consumers don't have that sort of wealth and that's likely to mean that's sort of catastrophic policy is not a good fit for them, even in terms of the purely financial. i think we also know moderate costs can be a good tool for discouraging overutilization. we also have evidence that as cost sharing becomes more excessive, this sort of care isn't necessarily the low value care, a lot is the high value care. so i think there is a sensible role for cost sharing and for making sure that we're not sort of putting an emphasis on kompbl, b --
>> i would underscore that. you're referencing ken arrows article from the 1960s, which was extremely important in the sense that it suggests health care is really a different beast when it comes to consumers being able to rationally shop for the best bargain. and i suspect many people here, myself included, have been in a situation where you have a system that's beginning to nudge you towards more skin in the game and consumer shopping and you've often felt invcapable of doing so. so i think arrows' insight was health care is different in this regard. it doesn't mean there's no room for skin in the game, but it does mean it can be pushed too far. one of my concerns is that the increase in high deductible plan is moving in that direction.
according to the kaiser family foundation, something like 65% of the employer sponsored plans with firms of over 200 workers are now high deductible plans. and as matt just suggested, that can have a downside. it doesn't just disincentive people of finding ways for useful health care. so you have to be mindful where the edge is on that approach. >> i guess i'm more sympathetic to where jim came down. what i would emphasize when you think about this is, it's easy to say health care and somehow make the mistake of say thing's just one thing out there called health care. there's an enormous array of health services that range from very acute and emergency style care to highly elective
procedures and shouldn't be thought of in the same way. one of the things i think allowing for some catastrophic backstop, you want to make sure that there's a catastrophic backstop and some flexibility in plan design and innovation that gives you better choices that people can make to cover the kinds of things they face at that point in their life cycle. that, i think, is what the privatization does better than the government. the government bakes into the cake these are the choices you're going to have and the innovation is quite poor. so i think we really do have to worry about the catastrophic backstops but take advantage of innovation over time. >> before we open it up further, i would just like to pin you down on one more specific item. we've had a couple of criticisms uttered of the tax exclusion for employer sponsored insurance and references to the cadillac plan tax. is that our best available
antidote to the esi tax distortion or should we be looking at a different approach going forward? >> who gets to answer that? >> whoever wants to volunteer. >> we have a cadillac tax because when campaigning, barack obama attacked john mccain for proposing to get rid of the exclusion. that's the only reason we have it. the back doorway to get rid of the exclusion. just get rid of it. it doesn't add up from a tax policy point of view. so scrap the cadillac tax, tap the exclusion in some way, index that cap, and get the incentives lined up better.