tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN October 19, 2016 7:00pm-12:01am EDT
that same system already in place to administer an exception for racial bias. >> what about religious bias? same thing in this case, except it's not -- you know, this is how mexicans act, this is how catholics or jews act. so they're obviously guilty. wouldn't that also come under your exception? >> there's obviously, mr. chief justice, frequently an overlap between race and religion. so for that reason, religion might be viewed very similarly. >> all right. that seems to be avoiding at which the question. catholics. >> all the court needs to decide in this case today is race. >> no, i don't think that's fair. once we decide race, this is not an equal protection case, it's a sixth amendment case. we think invocation of race is an impermissible enough, i guess, that we will pierce the jury confidentiality. the next case is going to be religion. so if whatever we say on race is going to have to have either a limiting principle that makes sense or it's going to open up a
broad category of cases. >> i don't deny that there may be subsequent cases if you decide this one in my favor. but i'm saying two things to the court. first of all, you can and should do what the court has done in previous situations like this, which is start with race. and the reason why is because the court has said time and again in cases like rose against mitchell, in cases like hamm against south carolina, that race is different. race is unique. it is a unique -- >> suppose we start with race. you're not being very helpful to the court in your answers. suppose we start with race. and then the next case involves religion. how would you distinguish religion from race? if we were to reach an opposite conclusion in the religious case? >> what you would do in that case, justice alito, is conduct the same analysis you're being asked to conduct here, which is look at the tanner factors and ask, how effective other safeguards are -- >> mr. fisher, why? >> pardon me?
>> why? >> why would you ask -- >> why? the chief says this is not an equal protection case. but the sixth amendment applies to the states, and the 14th amendment, correct? >> yes. >> i always thought the most pernicious and odious discrimination in our law is based on race. >> i agree with that. >> all right. so why is a rule that says, given the exceptions we've recognized since the 1800s, that have said that race is the most pernicious thing in our justice system, why can't we limit this just to race using principles of the 14th amendment as well? >> i'm not denying that you can. and of course the constitution needs to be read structurally. >> do you think it's odious to have the same sort of discrimination against someone because he's muslim? practices islamic faith? you say, he's a muslim, i know
how muslims behaved, he committed this crime. is that not sufficiently like racial discrimination that it should be carved out? >> it may well be, your honor. >> sexual orientation, someone gives a bigoted speech in a jury room about sexual orientation and how particular types of people are more likely to commit crimes like the one before them, is that sufficiently odious? >> it's quite odious. whether it would -- is you have to have an answer for this reason. no one on the other side things anything but this is terrible jury misbehavior. that's a given across the case. it is not a question of the validity of the behavior. it's invalid. the question is the timing of when somebody has to object. their point is they have to object before the verdict comes in. because if you don't have that
rule, you will in fact open the door to all kinds of evils which they mention. all right? that's the their argument. so what we're really asking for is your reply to that argument. and it doesn't really reply to say maybe you're going to have a bunch of other things too. because then that strengthens their argument. and on the other hand, maybe that's what you think. the whole question is, is that inevitably opening the door to these other things, which will mean, tell the jury, jury, if somebody says a racist comment, write me a note, the judge says, before you reach a verdict. and you get the point. that's why the question is being asked. that's why i too would like an answer. >> so i think you've asked a more specific question about objecting, and then a more general question that we've been talking about not drawing lines. for objecting, let me just say, it's impossible for the defendant to object to the misconduct in this case, because the defendant is not in the jury
room to hear it. there's never been a right that depends on the jurors themselves. >> mr. fisher, please, please concentrate on the question just beyer has asked you. answer his question. he's talking about the general principle. he says everybody is afraid to open the door, all right? and to the extent that your answer is simply the door is open once you rule for me, because other bias is going to be viewed the same, it's going to hurt you. that's what justice breyer said. so tell me why that fear is not valid. >> i think there's two reasons why. one is you can look at the court's cases that i described already, things like rose against mitchell, hamm against south carolina, where we have race-specific rules that have never been extended beyond race. i know this isn't strictly speaking an equal protection case, but the same values of the 14th amendment infuse the sixth
amendment. an analogy -- >> why isn't this national origin? you're trying to isolate race. but this was a case of a mexican-american. so why doesn't it belong under national origin rather than race? >> i think the court's case law has fused the two concepts, particularly had it comes to people of hispanic origin. like the government and i think everybody agrees, race and ethnicity is interchangeable in this case. if i can continue my answer about the analogy to the tears of scrutiny -- >> is it true with respect to other ethnic groups, only with respect to hispanics? >> it's most true with respect to hispanics in the court's cases, that's why every party has used the term "race." the tears of scrutiny -- >> you keep on being cut off before you get to the tears of scrutiny. the cases where the court has said that a lawyer has to be
allowed to ask on voir dire about bias. does that -- is that only true of racial bias or is that true of any other kind of bias as well? >> under this court's cases, only race. and remember, hamm was decided in 1973. so there have been plenty of time for that issue to percolate. i don't know of any -- >> i'm sorry. is that right? >> i'm sorry? >> it's just race? >> i believe so. >> and then batson would be race and gender, is that right? >> that's right. i think batson is another helpful analogy. first of all, in batson itself, there was an opinion about race. of course the question of gender came back several years later. there were three dissenters in that case. it didn't automatically follow from the first. you asked about the tanner factors and the other factors, things like the composition of ordinary juries. very different when you're talking about sex than race. >> suppose that -- suppose
somebody in the jury room, say it's an automobile accident, what do you and women drivers, women shouldn't be allowed to drive cars, every woman i know is a terrible driver. suppose that was said. >> well, you would ask the same questions you're asking today but through a different record and a different set of balancing. you might conclude, i'm not going to deny this, the court mate conclude as you did in batson that you should extend to sex. you might not conclude that. maybe now i can make my tears of scrutiny case. under a similar analogy, it's not that one is more odious than the other or one is better or one doesn't violate the amendment. it's that different tools must be available to root out different discrimination. that's the point of scrutiny, we
do not leave any stones unturned when it comes to race. >> isn't it true that in the decisions of this court, those tears are not what they once were, that is, strict scrutiny is no longer fatal, in fact, and for gender discrimination, you must have an exceedingly persuasive justification for it? >> of course, justice ginsburg, that's correct. i'm just trying to give this court an analogy it might use to think about the problem of how to apply the sixth amendment to different kinds of alleged bias. >> well, it's not just alleged bias. it's bias based on the innate characteristics of the offensive remarks. but the question is what is most likely or a significant risk of depriving the defendant of a fair trial. and it seems to me there are statements that have nothing to do with race or gender or sexual orientation or anything that might have a far greater impact. and i'm wondering why we don't allow impeachment of the jury verdict in those cases.
someone, i don't know, comes in and says, i know that witness, that witness lies all of the time, believe me, you can't take anything he says. i mean, that in a particular case could have a greater impact. why don't we allow impeachment of the jury processes in that case? >> i think it's a very important question that goes to the heart of the case, because i think you could have also used the hypothetical from cases like tanner and worker. the reason why is because the court has said time and again that race is different. there's a difference between a bias, harmful that it may be, that affects only a private litigant compared to racial bias which is a stain on the entire judicial system and the integrity that it's built upon. that is the difference the court said in rose against mitchell, it's the difference the court said in hamm against south carolina, it's what the court has talked about in its batson line of cases. it's that stain on the system. >> what do the 20 states do?
>> 18 states and two federal jurisdictions. those jurisdictions have all limited their exception to race. that's what you're asking. and remember, some of those exceptions have been around, and new york has been around since the '60s. in minnesota, it's been around since the '70s. so we have vast experience in the states. when all the argues are maments on the other side, which i respectfully say are theoretical arguments about the harm that would come from adopting the rule, i would stress to the court, this is not a theoretical question. there is an empirical answer available to the court based on experience across the country from multiple jurisdictions. >> race is different for some purposes. but why is it different from other things for sixth amendment purposes? what the sixth amendment protects is a right to a fair trial, to an impartial jury. if we allow the exception that you are advocating, what do you see to the defendant, the
prisoner who is going to be spending the rest of his life in prison as a result of a jury verdict that was determined by flipping a coin? >> i think i would give you the same answer i gave to the chief justice earlier, that it is woefully unfair. but when the court does its balancing of the harm on the one side to the judicial system and the defendant against the state interests, the balance is different when it comes to race. >> how does that connect with the right to an impartial jury? a jury can be partial for racial reasons. it can be partial for some other reason. >> because the values of the 14th amendment are read into the sixth amendment as well. if i could give the court an analogy, think of bowling against sharp. the court asked whether the equal protection clause applies to the federal government, which it doesn't by its terms. the court says the due process clause in the fifth amendment does, and that should be infused with the values of equal
protection. and the particular harms of racial discrimination should be read into that amendment as well. that's all we're asking here. >> has there been any case other than boning resharp, the conspicuous access was operative against the federal government? i don't know of any case other than boning v. sharp where you have that kind of reverse incorporation. >> no, i think, justice ginsburg, another example would be hamm. remember, the voir dire cases are all due process cases. there's nothing in the due process clause that singles out race. but this court's opinion does. it says that the structure of the constitution and our unique problem of race and our history and our so the require special medicine. >> do we take the entire body of law that we have developed in connection with racial discrimination when the equal protection clause is the issue and apply that to your case? for example, here you have a very obviously offensive and direct appeal to race.
what if it's, oh, you know, he's from that neighborhood, i know people from that -- people from that neighborhood always commit crimes like this. obviously that could well be challenged as based on race or -- i mean, does that also -- do we impeach the secrecy of the jury proceedings for something like that? >> the analysis would be similar, but wouldn't have to be lockstep. the question asked in the 20 jurisdictions that already do this, would a reasonable juror have understood the comments to be about race. would the jurors have understood the juror who spoke to be asking them to decide the case or view the evidence based on racial bias. and remember -- >> the second is very different from the first. the second -- >> i'm sorry if i confused the court. the key, when you're talking about people such as from that neighborhood, are whether or not they would be understood as race-based comments as opposed to something else. >> i like the second better.
otherwise you're going to have an evidentiary hearing in every allegation, and 20 jurisdictions don't, right? there has to be a test that tells you, what's the difference between a stray remark and something that has impact. >> right. so both are required, justice sotomayor, i'm sorry if i was confusing about that. first you're asking whether or not it was racial bias as opposed to some other kind of bias. second, you ask whether it went to the evidence in the case and the defendant's guilt or whether it was an off-color joke made during a break or something like that. let me stress two things. one is the jurisdictions that exist already do this. even jurisdictions like colorado already do this. go back to the first -- back to justice breyer's question. if a juror had sent a note out five minutes before the verdict, in this case or any other, describing racial bias, the judge would make all the same inquiries. >> i don't see the problem there. what's actually worrying me about writing this on paper,
somebody could say well, you know, on request, the defense attorney can get an instruction, send us a note before you reach the jury. that could happen. you want to go beyond that and impeach the verdict. the real reason i suspect is, even though we can imagine cases that are just as unfair, flipping a coin, et cetera, that part of the purpose of these amendments is to create a judicial system that is seen as fair, beyond the individual case. and indeed, being seen as fair beyond the individual case means that it is more likely to be fair in other cases as well. now, if i'm really honest, i think, yeah, that's probably right, and then the history and everything become relevant. but have you found any support for that? >> for what exactly? >> that what we're doing here in creating the exception, despite the fact that we can think of justice alito's case, which is
just as unfair, though it doesn't involve race, is we're trying to create a fairer system in general. and one that will be perceived as such. and there, race is a special problem. so i wonder if -- and if i could write it, i think it would make sense. but i'm asking you, is there support for such a thing. >> yes, you almost spoke verbatim out of the rosal es-lopez opinion which draws in the aldridge versus united states opinion in 1931. this is a principle that goes a way back in jurisprudence, which is the perception of fairness is paramount. justice breyer, if i could add something, two points about your question which we returned to about what if the juries could be instructed to send a note out. there's two problems with that. first, the jurors are always
instructed, as they were in this case, to use their common sense experience in the jury room and draw upon that. remember how these comments are couched, as is often the case, as juror h.c.'s personal experience that mexican men, blah blah blah. so a jury instruction at best is going to be cross cutting against another jury instruction and not always work. even in the much easier case of extraneous evidence and improper influence, which are exceptions that colorado recognizes, as does the federal system and everyone else, jurors are always instructed not to do those things, and yet they do sometimes, and the system demands that we give a remedy when jurors don't follow those instructions. >> what is it, the proceeding that you would have, if we accept your proposal and interview the jurors, subject them to -- what do you ask them? >> there's two steps, mr. chief justice. first is a threshold showing that i described earlier, that there was a statement -- >> okay. the facts are as alleged here, i guess.
what do you do once you have that in the record? what's next? >> so the judge asks exactly the same question the judge would ask with other kinds of jury misconduct, like extraneous evidence. the judge asks is there a reasonable possibility that the verdict was influenced by that bias. >> if the other jurors come in and testify, and everybody says, yes, that's what he said, and they say -- but of course the guy was guilty, no doubt about it, and the other 11 say, of course he was guilty, it was very offensive, what h.d. said, but of course he was guilty, we agreed to that in five minutes. does that make a difference? >> i think you've asked two questions there. the first is, is one juror enough. the second is, do you look at the strength of the government's case. on the first question of whether one biased question is enough, the court's decision in 1966 quite clearly says yes, which is the way you treated a multibody decision in williams last year. the question as to whether to look at the government's case as to whether to grant relief,
that's the one issue that the 20 jurisdictions across the country are divided. some say the mere fact that a single racially biased juror took that into account in issuing his verdict is enough for relief. and some other states will look at the overall strength of the government's case. for obvious reasons, the court need not resolve that in this case and can come out on that question however you wish. >> but specifically, what happens next? the chief asks the question. you have to poll, do all the jurors have to come back and each one testify, first of all, did he say what the jurors said he said, and then whether any of them were influenced by it. >> there's two questions, justice ginsburg. first, what does the evidence show. some jurisdictions require them to say who said what and in what context. then the judge asks if there was
a reasonable probability that the verdict was affected by racial bias. that question, justice ginsburg, is purely objective. it's like what courts do every day whether there's a bad jury instruction. they ask an objective tastest, h those improper statements brought into the jury room, is there a reasonable probability that the jury would have erred. >> so they ask if they would have found them guilty regardless? >> that's the issue of whether the courts are divided. we think the court might hold in a future case that it's enough to have a racially biased juror. that would be a question the court would ask. when i said look at the other facts, i meant the context in which a statement was made during deliberations. it might be that something said something and then somebody immediately spoke up and corrected that person and he said, oh, that's not what i
meant, i meant something else. and the judge, as they do every day in jurisdictions across the country, would hear this evidence and decide, oh -- >> here in this case we have a very blatant statement. but let's consider the standard that now applies on a lot of college campuses, as to statements that are considered by some people to be racist. what would happen if one of the jurors has the sensibility of a lot of current college students and thinks that one of the -- something that's said in the jury room that false into one of those categories was a racial comment? >> we're talking here, just alito, only about intentional racial bias. even the protection clause -- >> when a person says something that is considered improper on the college campus today, and another juror thinks that that shows intentional racial bias. >> no, i think, as i said, it's an objective test.
even under the court's equal protection jurisprudence -- >> how will the judge decide? how will the judge decide whether the statement is racist? >> i think it's the same analysis a judge would conduct in an equal protection case. is the statement asking to decide directly and intentionally on its face the case based on race. that's all you need to -- >> presumably the judge faces the same situation if a juror comes in during proceedings, is that right, and then the judge has to make that decision whether this is something to act on or not? >> absolutely right, justice kagan, or after the proceedings. remember, jurors can walk out on the courthouse steps, it's entirely proper to discuss the basis of your verdict. if that afternoon jurors say, this is how we decided the case, the judge might be asked to make the exact same inquiry. there's nothing new about the injure we' inquiry we're asking. >> does it make any difference if it were not the jurors as here, but the lawyer for the defense went around, contacted all the jurors, and elicited
this testimony so it wasn't the jurors volunteering, but the lawyer questioning the jurors to see if he can come up with something that would gain a new trial? >> as long as what the lawyer was doing comported with the local rules with respect to contacting jurors, it would be the same case. in minnesota, which is the one place where i think there is a case about a lawyer breaking the rules in terms of talking to a juror, there is a situation where it's different case than this, and the judge might deny relief. if i could reserve the remainder of my time. >> thank you, counsel. mr. yarger. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. may it please the court, everyone including petitioner agrees that the citizen jury system requires safeguards to ensure full and fair debate in the jury room to prevent juror
harassment and tampering after verdicts are handed down. the juror's statements in this case are no doubt reprehensible. but the vital interests apply just as readily here as they do in other serious alleged cases of juror misconduct and bias. petitioner has not shown -- >> mr. yarger, let's assume that's true, the state interests are basically the same. let's assume that the safeguards voir dire don't operate particularly differently, all right? so i'll just give you what i think is the strongest argument on mr. fisher's side, which is that the interests in preventing unfairness of this kind are much greater, that that's really the difference, is the fact that verdicts based on race discrimination pose a harm, that verdicts based on other kinds of unfairnesses, which exist in the world, and are terrible, but still, that it's just not the
same kind of harm. >> and we certainly don't dispute that racial bias is a particular problem and a particular problem in the constitution. but i don't think it's correct that other forms of bias won't cause the same types of institutional harms. of course this court has recognized that in j.e.b. versus alabama when it extended batson to claims of gender bias. and certainly a verdict based on the fact that a defendant is a muslim or a catholic or a mormon or any religious group would just as significantly call into question -- >> the one question is whether identity based harms are different than other kinds of unfairnesses, as we've talked about in the warricker case, for example, or the one before that. another question is whether race, vegracial bias is differe from other identity-based bias, right?
would you concede that identity-based c d bias is difft from the kinds of bias we've discussed in other cases? >> i wouldn't concede that in this specific context, where you're dealing with an individual defendant's sixth amendment right to a partial jury and a fair trial, set against the important and vital interests that the no impeachment rule serves to allow the jury to do its job. >> it's true that this is a sixth amendment case. it seems artificial not to think about the sixth amendment issue as informed by the principles of the equal protection clause. and those principles, as we've always understood them, says that there's a special kind of harm in treating people worse, and certainly in punishing people, because of their race. maybe especially because race is so associated with particular stereotypes respecting criminal
anato ity. that's the worse thing you can do to a person and also the worst thing you can suggest about the criminal justice system, that it allows that to happen. both of those two things, the harm to the individual from being punished because of your race, and the harm to society writ large. and that would, i think, be the -- it's like, yes, you're right, the state interests are exactly the same, voir dire functions pretty similarly. but it's just a different kind of harm. >> i think it would be difficult in the context of the sixth amendment, in the same courthouse in colorado, to tell one defendant that that defendant gets to impeach the verdict because the error that happened to occur during deliberations was racial, whereas across the hall it was religious or simply the jurors disrespecting the jury system enough to flip a coin. that's the problem, in all of these cases in which rule 606-b is going to apply, you're going to be putting the individual defendant's sixth amendment right, which petitioner
acknowledges can be implicated in a wide range of cases, against the interests that, justice kagan, i think you acknowledge are weighty and important and precisely why rule 606-b has survived for so many years. >> suppose this were a capital case. the government of the united states will make this argument, the person can be executed, despite what we know happened in the jury room? >> your honor, similarly, this is a capital case, that might raise different issues. there are cases in the briefing that are capital cases in which -- >> as a followup from your position. >> and it does, and our position is it should apply there. if the jury system is so important to be protected in these other contexts, and this rule is necessary for them to fully deliberate the issues. but i don't think that question needs to be confronted or answered in this case. >> do you have any evidence that in the 20 jurisdictions that permit this challenge, that
they've been overwhelmed with cases? >> your honor, i think there are two responses to that. first of all, we don't agree with that count of jurisdictions or how it breaks down. but second of all, petitioner does point to jurisdictions in which this exception was made. but he doesn't link that up with evidence that this is not occurring, that the harassment and the effects on full and fair deliberation are not being -- >> you can't prove a negative. that's almost impossible. so i want you to tell me the positive. is there evidence of some run amok sort of number of motions filed in any particular case based on racial discrimination, rampant jury harassment, any of the evils that you are predicting in your brief? >> what we do have, your honor, is specific examples in these particular cases where harassment is a very real problem, specifically with respect to racial bias, where
after all 12 jurors, a large number of jurors are pulled into the courtroom, it's determined that the affidavit at issue was manufactured by the attorney, and that the allegations were untrue. an example, your case from massachusetts. the other thing i would say, the iowa rule, the most permissive version of the no impeachment rule was on the table in 1965. all those arguments were the same then. all those arguments were made in tanner and made in warricker. what congress and this court decided and the vast majority of states decided was the strict version of the no-impeachment rule best balances these interests. it's a difficult balance, we acknowledge that. but six states apply that iowa rule. and certainly that's their judgment to make. but that doesn't mean that the exception is limited only to racial bias.
and six states that acknowledge a sixth amendment exception, they don't apply a categorical rule that allows evidence of racial bias in every case that it's alleged. they apply an extreme cases test. >> can you clarify something? i think mr. fisher told us that in the states, whether his number of 20 or yours of six is right, that this is limited to race. so it would not be applied to gender, sexual orientation, and apparently national origin other than hispanic. >> justice ginsburg, that is true, the cases that we've seen do only deal with racial bias. but we've seen extreme instances of other types of bias, religious bias against jews and muslims, and certainly i think those courts would have a hard time not extending whatever particular rule they've adopted to those settings. but yes, we do acknowledge that
to date, the exceptions have been racial bias. in those jurisdictions, the six jurisdictions that adopt the extreme cases rule, though, even when there is a very disturbing statement that surfaces post-trial, the courts still say, well, the importance of the no-impeachment rule still applies here and we're not going to create an exception. that's what the seventh circuit did. >> what exception would you recognize? as far back as reed, we have said, qualified 606-b's predecessor, 606-b, wagner said it, there might be a case so extreme that we would not apply this rule. if race is not so extreme, what in your judgment would be? >> your honor, i think the line that can be drawn consistent with that footnote would be whether or not the other safeguards that are necessary to assure a fair trial were made available in that particular case. so for example, there are cases in which voir dire on race or
religious bias was not made available. that would be a case in which, if evidence surfaced both-trial that that kind of misconduct influenced the deliberations, an exception might be necessary. the same if a court was given some hint that bias crept into the jury deliberations and didn't do anything about it, that would be possibly a situation in which the no-impeachment rule should yield. but if we're focused on that balance between -- >> well, right now we don't permit or require questioning on bias, except for race in voir dire. so where does your exception work? >> well -- >> because things do creep in. we don't make exceptions for those things. >> well, i think that's precisely right. we don't make exceptions. and we expect counsel on voir dire to be the mechanism through which we explore all of these biases. so when is not taken advantage
of when it could have been taken advantage of in this case -- >> the problem is it assumes that if the question is asked, that every juror is going to be truthful. you know, different people can have different experiences. but, you know, it is more rare than common that when a question is asked, is anyone biased, that most jurors won't raise their hand. >> and your honor, i think the same challenge arises with regard to nearly any bias that is crucial to a defendant's sixth amendment rights, which is precisely why the practice guide that the petitioner himself cites, asking the general question is not generally the best way to expose those types of biases during voir dire. here, not even the general question was asked about the race of the defendant in this case. >> what types of questions would you propound if you were trying to elicit whether there was bias on the part of a prospective
juror? >> i would propound the same types of questions. people's experiences on the subject, whether they believe racial issues still persist in this country and what their attitudes are. >> isn't it so that many lawyers won't ask that question even if they could, because just by asking the question, you're putting race in the minds of the jurors. and you would rather not do that. >> that's certainly the argument that petitioner makes here. but what experience has shown is that a careful and mature voir dire on race is not likely to infuse racism into jurors. in fact quite the opposite has been observed to happen, when jurors are respectfully confronted with racial issues at the outset of a trial, they tend to counter any racial bias that might come up during the thought process. >> how do you know that? >> that's the research we cited
from professor summers in the briefing. courts have looked at that research. the mccowan case in massachusetts, they said precisely the same thing, voir dire is a good time and a good mechanism to raise these issues, to ensure that they don't crop up. >> that's one of the problems here. it may be a good time to alert people who have this bias, not to talk about it. it seems to me that's a very hard thing to measure, this sort of bias. and i mean, one question, i guess, is whether impeaching the verdict in this way will cause people with biases like that to keep quiet about it, and yet still have the same sort of pernicious effect on the verdict. >> that's one of our concerns, mr. chief justice. and petitioner acknowledges, i think it's page 16 of his reply brief, that allowing this type of inquiry only on issues of racial bias might in fact drive racial bias underground. he says that's unlikely. the florida supreme court said it might happen.
and it strikes us, and it strikes colorado, that if the effect of a racial bias only exception to the no-impeachment rule drives racism underground where it can't be confronted and can't be reported to the judge, the balance that colorado strikes by not carving out subject matter exceptions to the no-impeachment rule is a good one. >> isn't, you know -- there's a lot of talk about political correctness or not. and some people think it's a negative thing and others thing it's a positive thing. but if an individual is harboring racial bias, isn't it better to harbor it than infect everyone else's deliberations on the basis of it? i mean, if you're not saying every mexican commits this kind of crime, but you're forced to argue the evidence to convince your jurors, isn't that exactly
what we want? we want deliberations on evidence and not deliberations on someone's stereotypes and feelings about the race of a defendant. >> that is absolutely what we want. >> so why shouldn't we try to drive it underground? >> your honor, with respect, i think that if the juror harbors that bias and is on the jury, that's going to influence the verdict one way or the other. >> do jurors even know about the existence of the vase delavelle rule, that jurors can't impeach their verdict? >> justice ginsburg, what jurors do know when they enter the deliberation room is that's a secret proceeding, and they're told after they leave they can talk to people as much or as little as they want about what goes on in the jury room. so calling them back in, calling multiple jurors back in to take
the stand under penalty of perjury and under cross-examination, be examined on what was said in those deliberations, will have a significant effect on the deliberative climate in the jury room. >> can you tell me as a matter of what goes on in the bar in your state in colorado, particularly? i take it that in civil cases, lawyers who may be trying a similar case all the time question jurors after the fact, after the verdict, in order to see how to improve their arguments, et cetera. if civil cases and criminal cases. is this a problem generally? and a related question, are there articles and statistics about the prevalence of this and whether or not this is disruptive to the legal system? >> the specific post-trial sort of conversation between counsel and jurors? i haven't seen anything like that. that is a common practice in the state of colorado. but one concern is that certainly a skilled lawyer in every case is going to present evidence of alleged bias as if it were volunteered to that
attorney. it's only after actually inquiring of the jurors, putting multiple jurors on the stand to get to the bottom of those allegations, what was said, when it was meant, and what was meant in context, will you get to whether this actually exposed racial bias on the part of a juror, whether it was something else. and by that point you have done exactly what rule 606-b seeks to prevent courts from doing in order to create the atmosphere of full and fair debate in the jury room. >> when this rule was first announced, they were thinking about verdicts, coin flipping. identity bias didn't figure in england when this rule was first articulated. >> certainly that might be true
at the time the common law rule was announced. but rule 606-b was debated and adopted in the 1970s, recently. since that time no rule maker has decided to draw lines within the rule based on the subject matter of the misconduct of the juror. i think that reflects the tension that we were talking about earlier, which is, it doesn't matter what kind of bias arises in the course of proceedings. all of it has significant sixth amendment concerns for individual defendants. drawing the lines only as to racial bias but to no other type of misconduct would disserve the rule and would give an adequate reason not to draw first time lines down the road and i feel would leave the iowa rule, which this court and congress and the vast majority of the states have rejected. your honor, if there no further questions. >> thank you, counsel.
ms. kovner? >> mr. chief justice and may it please the court, racial bias is a real problem that the united states is committed to eradicati eradicating. but there are ways to address that problem without undermining structural protections of the jury system that have withstood legal challenges for hundreds of years. i take petitioner's principle to be that a different rule should apply under the sixth amendment when a particular form of bias is at issue. i want to take a moment to underscore how that's without foundation in this court's cases. >> ms. kovner, it seems there are two lines of cases in which we've recognized that racial bias in the jury room is an especially important problem and that there need to be special rules to address that problem. the first line of cases is the ones that on voir dire say that
a lawyer who wants to ask about racial bias on voir dire has to be able to ask about racial bias. and that we've applied to nothing else except for racial bias. and the second is the batson line of cases, where we've said we're going to prevent lawyers from doing what we otherwise allow them to do when striking jurors will lead to -- may lead to race bias in the jury room. now, here we have like a screaming race bias in the jury room. we have the best smoking gun evidence you're ever going to see about race bias in the jury room. and notwithstanding in these two lines of cases, we've said there need to be special rules to address this prevalent and toxic problem in our criminal justice system. here we're not going to do that. and the question is, why would this category of cases be
different from those other two? >> your honor, we think this court has never treated some sixth amendment violations as more serious than others. to talk about these two lines of cases that your honor raises, if your honor looks at what the court was doing in the voir dire cases, race was the particular issue it confronted there. but it was indicating, and it's indicated in other cases, you have to conduct the kind of voir dire that's reasonably calculated to detect the biases that may be present in a particular case. so those particular kinds of case involve the high risk of racial bias. and that's why the court said voir dire on race is required there. and to i think answer the question your honor asked of co-counsel, i think the court has applied that principle in other contexts. under the sixth amendment you sometimes have to ask a question about the ability to -- and then the second area your honor raises is the equal protection area. we think even there, the court
has not distinguished among different types of constitutional violations, and said we're going to treat some violations of the constitution as particularly serious. what the court said in those cases, we think, your honor, is that there has to be special care taken when the government acts on race. so some conduct that wouldn't be unconstitutional at all if it were taken based on some other criteria is unconstitutional when it's taken based on race. >> the reason i think would be sixth amendment says all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a trial by an impartial jury. i agree with you that racial comments in the room can be equivalent to other comments. but there may be -- that's what i wanted to know -- a prophylactic aspect. that if you want impartial jurors in general, you have to deal with the problem of racial confidence in the work of the juror.
and that's a reason stemming from the language of the amendment to treat race supe specially. and we have 20 states that have done so without the reasons for limitation swamping the process. that i understand is a textual argument. >> i think, your honor, when considering a prophylactic approach to preventing sixth amendment violations, it's important to consider the costs of this rule and the other alternative mechanics that are available. those are things the court has traditionally considered under the sixth amendment. turning to that with respect to race, we think the prophylactic mechanisms the court has relied on are likely to be particularly available in many cases with regard to race. and to talk about, first voir dire and then the in-trial mechanisms your honor mentioned, so in voir dire, as justice kagan's questions alluded to,
there is a well-settled principle, and it's the law in colorado, that you'll have the opportunity to ask these questions about race. there's also been a lot of study and thinking that's gone into how to effectively detect bias with respect to race in particular. your honor alludes to mid-trial reporting. things can be done to strengthen that safeguard. your honor alluded to some of the things that can be done about particular instructions. but in general jurors are instructed that bias in general can impermissible and they condition instructed to contact the judge. on the cost side of the ledger, this court has always recognized there is a high danger and fair trial danger if you're trying to reconstruct after the fact jury deliberations with a he said/she said about what was said, that can undermine confidence in the juror system. we think that risk may be particularly acute when you're talking about a very sensitive allegation like that racial bias occurred. and i think we know as time goes on that racial bias can be expressed in subtle ways and
particularly after a jury verdict is rendered, and somebody goes back into the community where a sensitive issue has been debated, and they're trying to recall what was said. there is the real risk that there will be these kind of credibility battles. >> so the more insidious the evil, the less reason -- the more caution we should have in inquiring of the jury? >> no. we think this is a really serious issue and ought to be addressed with the kinds of safeguards this court has always applied. to the extent that the court has recognized dangers, they're present here. to take for instance the danger of impeding full and fair jury room deliberations, we think that's a particular risk when you're talking about an allegation that contains a very high degree of social opprobrium attached to it. there are cases when it's discussed in the jury room because it's appropriate, because the claim involves racial bias, in which police misconduct in which race is
often discussed. that's different from for example coin flipping or intoxication. likely to impede full and fair debate in the jury room. >> it does strike me that given one of the rules is that a juror can during deliberations say something inappropriate is happening here. to the extent there's this chilling effect, why doesn't that produce the exact same chilling effect. it seems like it's such on the margins what you're saying. >> for hundreds of years, courts have treated the midtrial context different. a midtrial reporting you're talking about something that sets off jurors alarm. there's also really the risk that jurors regret their decision in a case. they start to second guess what they did.
as a result they start to misremember or they're subject to community pressures that aren't present when the trial is occurring. your honor, we're not suggesting this isn't a serious issue and even one that jurisdictions such as this court can study and consider. it's a difficult balance but what this court has generally said with rules to evidence is states have a lot of flexibility to adopt different approaches. the rules are present and the safeguard the rule has relied on historically are fully present. >> i like the government -- or the state of colorado, the government would make the same argument in the capital case? >> we think they present eighth amendment consideration s that are not present here. and there may be different considerations in that context. your honor, to the extent the court regards the rule as problematic or one that requires further study, the appropriate way is a rule making body which
is another way this court considers and exercises oversight. but it shouldn't impose a new constitutional rule that requires set aside a historical -- >> in the states that allow this kind of evidence, is it all done by legislation? by rule of court? or has it come about by judicial decision? >> some of these jurisdictions are jurisdictions that employ the iowa rule so they let in a lot 5 evidence about what was said in jury deliberations. some have said we think this is an exception that has to exist to the rule, and some of the decisions on which petitioner relies are -- >> the issue of capital case could involve all sorts of misconduct in the jury room. so suppose if it came out later the jurors at the penalty phase and capital case said we don't
care what the law is we want to impose capital punishment. or they flipped a coin. if there were a special rule for capital cases, would you draw the distinction based on race? >> i don't think so. i think if there were capital rule it would go to whether it's permissible to apply. rule 66b as a general rule in this context. >> five minutes, mr. fisher. >> thank you. i'd like to make forpoints, please. first to pick whereupon that conversati -- up where that conversation left off. the eighth amendment would become relevant. that's the constitutional argument we're mangiking and th other side is suggesting that's imprommer. you also consider other elements. secondly with respect to the prophylactic measures, specifically voir dire, the studies they point to are studies where race is already
infused in the case from the outset. hamm against south carolina where the defense is all about the person's race. in those settings, questioning of voir dire is almost incumbent upon lawyers. that's not really where the question is today. if they are saying voir dire is a cure all for this situation, they're saying in every single criminal case it's shoplifting, whether it's white collar crime, a dui, any case a defense lawyer is really required to interject race into the case from the outset. so as between interjecting race into the case from the outset, potentially offending jurors, suggesting race is relevant where it doesn't exist and our solution which is having a constitutional failsafe for the once in a blue moon where you have this grave problem. we think our solution actually does a lot less upheaval to the system than an opinion from this court that says voir dire is the answer here. next, let me say something we
agree with the other side. i heard both counsel for the other side say this is a balance. f and we agree that's what the court's cases dictate and 606b is a balance between the interest of justice and jury secrecy. i would suggest when you conduct that balance where we disagree with the other side. they say the court's duty is to choose the lesser of two evils. racial bias is never the lesser evil. the court has never said that racial bias is a lesser evil than something like the public policy considerations here. and i know the court is concerned about line drawing. it's obvious in a situation like this where you announce a new rule as a constitutional matter that you're wondering what cases are going to come next. i respectfully submit the court has never refused to remedy intentional race discrimination in the criminal justice system for fear of having to address other situations down the line. whether they are the hamm line
of cases or anything else, the court will have ample tools and ample time to decide down the road whether other situations are the same or whether they're different. our submission here, though is that race is unique. race is a particular poison. and that the experience of the 20 jurisdictions that's have this rule shows that implementing the rule we're asking will not create any significant problems with respect to the state interest or the admin straltors -- >> it's not a fear of confronting issues down the road. it's a question of understanding the scope of the rule that you are asking us to adopt. and i'll give you one last chance. you will not tell us today whether your rule applies to discrimination on the basis of religion or gender or sexual orientation or to add another one, political affiliations of the jurors if it came out that jurors said this person is a
democrat. send him to jail, that would be a different result. you will not tell us whether the rule would apply in those situations. >> it's easy to say that categories covered in equal protection cause by rational base, ainal s analysis would no require the rule today. i'm not representing somebody today that has that case. the court would want full briefing on it. >> i understand why you don't want to say it wouldn't apply to this or wouldn't apply to that. but in what ways is race unique? >> it's unique in terms of our history and constitutional structure and the more practical considerations of rooting it out with the prophylactic measures we've discussed. the briefing is filled with citations and examples of why race is particularly hard to get at through the tanner factors as compared to even something like other kinds of discrimination.
the tears of scrutiny analysis is a good place for the court to look. we're not saying other forms of discrimination are okay whereas race discrimination is unconstitutional. different tools need to be available. more searching inquiries need to be done when it comes to race. the rule of evidence here gives way in a situation where it might not in other situations. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. after i came up with my idea of reproductive rights, i went and researched with different events in our news. i knew i could find information on that. that would also help me figure out what points i wanted to say about it and how to form my outline for my piece. >> i don't think i took a very methodical approach to this process which, i mean, you could if you wanted, but i think that really with a piece as dense as this, i would say it's really just a process of reworking and
reworking. so as i was trying to come up with what my actual theme was, i was doing research at the same time and coming up with more ideas for what i could film and i would come up with an idea like, that would be a great shot. so ides think about that and that would give me a new idea of something else to focus on. so then ides do research about that. the whole process is just about building on other things and scratching what doesn't work and you keep on going until you get what is the finished product. >> this year's theme, your message to warrant, d.shington,. what is the most pressing issue for congress to address in 2017? our competition is open to all middle school or high school students grades 6 through 12 with $100,000 awarded in cash prizes. students can work alone or in a group of up to three to produce a five to seven-minute documentary on the issue selected. include some c-span programming and also explore opposing opinions. the $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded and shared between 150 students and 53 teachers.
and the grand prize $5,000 will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. this year's deadline is january 20th, 2017. mark your calendars and help us spread the word to student filmmakers. for more information go to our website, student cam.org. tonight, education secretary john king. health and human services secretary silvia burwell gives an update on the affordable care act. and voter anger and its effect on the presidential race. at the u.s. chamber of commerce health care summit, a look at innovations in health care. education secretary john king spoke at the national press club recently about how schools can encourage civic engagement and public service among students. he was introduced by jeff ballou
of al jazeera english. >> good afternoon, and welcome to the national press club. i'm jeff ballou with al jazeera english here and the 109th vice president of the national press club. our guest today is dr. john v. king jr., the tenth u.s. secretary of education. i would welcome our public radio and c-span audiences, and i want to remind you, you can follow the action on twitter using #npclive. this will be, again, a great time for you to turn off or at least silence your cell phones so they don't disrupt our program. if you have any questions for our speaker, you can write them on the cards that are at your table, pass them up to the head table and we'll try to get through as many of them as time
permits or tweet them to the hashtag npclive. now is the time to introduce our head table guest. on your right looking at us and on my far left, vacari aarons. at the data quality campaign. and vice president of the education writers association. tahider sing, editor of india america today and white house correspondent. emily wilkins, education and labor reporter at cq roll call. amy mcintosh, assistant secretary at the u.s. department of education. carol feldman, director of news operations and finance at the associated press. and also education editor at the associated press. jahana hays, 2016 national teacher of the year.
constancia, reporter for bloomberg news and chair of the national press club speakers committee. lisa matthews, vice president hager sharp and the national press club speakers committee member who organized today's luncheon. thank you, lisa. and the chief of staff to the secretary of education. jamal, senior staff writer for diverse issues in higher education. candice smith, executive director of media relations at the george washington university. and liam roberta, alliance creative communications and involved in the 1979 transition team for the then new u.s. department of education. which was established in 1980. [ applause ] it was just seven months ago our guest was confirmed as secretary
of education. but dr. john v. king jr. has been involved in public education all his life. a former social studies teacher from new york, he's known for crediting the public school system with his life. king had a difficult childhood. by the age of 12, both of his parents had died. it was a rough and tumble time but after school -- after that, school was his sanctuary. years later, dr. king would go on to lead new york state education department from 2011 to 2014 before joining the department of education. despite his emphasis on making sure all students are receiving the same level of education, regardless of race or zip code, king's tactics have been criticized on all sides. at school districts, at pta meetings, congress. at the same time, he has been praised for understanding the importance of a diverse, rich,
well-rounded education. dr. king supported the implementation of the every student succeeds act which replaced no child left behind. he has urged states to use the new federal education law. that's what i get for covering elections for so long. to expand and focus more on science, social studies, arts and world languages. i like that last one. dr. king has also pushed for higher standards as a stepping stone that ensures all students are ready for what's next. today he returns to his roots as a social studies teacher to speak with us here at the national press club about the role of schools in prepping students to be active citizens. please welcome to the national press club podium, dr. john v. king jr., secretary of education. [ applause ]
>> good afternoon. thank you so much for the introduction, and thank you to the press club for inviting me here to speak with you today about a topic about which i am passionate both as a former social studies teacher and as an american, the importance of civic education as part of a well-rounded education. i've spoken about well-rounded education many times before. i often speak about my teacher in fourth, fifth and sixth grade at ps-276. he made a huge difference in my life after my mom passed away. he made school engaging, compelling and nurturing. we read and discussed "the new york times" every day in his class. performed shakespeare and went to the met and museum of natural history and other cultural institutions. wherever we went, whatever we were doing, he would really
listen and respond to our questions and our observations. he made each of us feel valued and unique. last december the president, president obama, signed the every student succeeds act or essa. essa creates an opportunity for states and schools to reclaim the promise of a high quality well-rounded education like the one i had thanks to great new york city public school teachers. an education that prepares every student regardless of their background to succeed in college and careers. later this week, the department of education will release nonregulatory guidance on one part of essa. a new grant program designed to help schools and communities provide students with access to well-rounded education, to create and save in support of school environments, and to improve the use of technology. we owe it to every child in this country to provide them with access to music and the arts.
world languages. physics, chemistry, biology. physical education and health. coding and computer science. and social studies. geography. government and civics. these are not luxuries. they are essential for preparing our students to thrive in the world they will experience beyond high school. today i want to focus on the importance of civic education and what that might look like in schools and colleges. when we think about the responsibilities of citizens, we often think primarily about voting. and voting is unquestionably the cornerstone of freedom. the right to vote undergirds all our other rights. to not vote is to turn your back on your neighbors and your community and your country. and throughout our history, people have fought and even died to be treated as full citizens and to be able to cast a ballot. it was 132 years after the
ratification of the constitution before women were allowed to vote thanks to the 19th amendment. it wasn't until 1965 and the passage of the voting rights act that african-americans were trial finally guaranteed the right to vote, despite the 15th amendment having been added to the constitution nearly 100 years earlier. it's not ancient history, 1965. congressman john lewis was among many who were beaten and who suffered as part of that struggle, and some older african-american voters can remember having to take literacy tests before being allowed to register and vote. we need to be ever vigilant to be sure this right is not taken away. however, as i would tell my students, when i was teaching, voting, as important as it is, is only one responsibility of citizenship. the strength of our democracy
depends on all of us as americans understanding our history and the constitution and how the government works at every level. becoming informed and thoughtful about local, state and national issues, getting involved in solving problems in our schools, communities, states and nationally. recognizing that solutions to the complex issues our nation faces today all require compromise. being willing to think beyond our own needs and wants and to embrace our obligations to the greater good. finally, i would argue our democracy, our communities and our nation would be stronger if all of us volunteered on behalf of others. none of this will occur automatically. as americans we celebrate our individuality and differences. but to remain a functioning society and democracy, we values to recognize that we are dependent on society and society depends on us. all of us.
parents, elected officials, educators, journalists and everyone else must set a good example for our children and newcomers to this society and to make this in lincoln's words, a more perfect union. but today i want to argue that our schools and colleges have a special experience to prepare their students to do so. educating students about their role in democracy is one of the original goals. and it should remain so today as our nation becomes more and more diverse. and right now, it is clear that our schools and colleges must do more to meet that goal. only 1 in 5 eighth graders and 12th graders have a working knowledge of the constitution, the presidency, congress, the courts and how laws are made. not surprisingly, we're failing. even more of our children of color and children from low-income families. only about 1 in 10 -- 1 in 10
african-american, hispanuc and low-income students have a working knowledge of how government functions. only one-third of americans even know that joe biden is vice president or can name a single supreme court justice. those of us who work in washington may think, how could this be? but it is the reality. today all 50 states and the district of columbia make some civics instruction a graduation requirement. over the past couple of years, 14 states have begun requiring students to pass a version of the citizenship exam to get a diploma. that could be a good start, but it is civics light. knowing the first three words of the preamble to the constitution or being able to identify at least one branch of government is worthwhile, but it's not enough to equip people to carry out the duties of citizenship. everyone above a certain age who watched saturday morning cartoons remembers how a bill becomes a law from schoolhouse
rock. but that doesn't help them evaluate different positions on issues such as immigration or climate change or taxation. so today i ask our nation's schools and colleges to be bold and creative in educating for citizenship. make preparing your students for their civic duties just as much a priority as preparing them to succeed in college and in their careers. and i ask educators to work from the broader definition of civic duty that i've described. i ask teachers and principals and superintendents to help your students learn to be problem-solvers who can grapple with challenging issues such as how to improve their schools, homelessness, air and water pollution, or the tensions between police and communities of color. it is also critical that these conversations not be partisan. civic education engagement is not a democratic party or republican party issue. solutions to problems can and should be rooted in different
philosophies of government. we have to make sure classrooms welcome and celebrate these different perspectives. i recognize this could lead to uncomfortable conversations and that teachers will need support and training to foster these conversations in productive ways. principals will need to be courageous and back their teachers up. superintendents and school boards need to make sure their communities understand what they are trying to accomplish. i know from personal experience that these issues are not always easy to talk about. i have two daughters. one in elementary school and one in middle school. over the past year, we've had to talk to them a lot about the fact that the vast majority of police officers are dedicated public servants who are doing their best to keep people safe. and at the same time, the reality, we've got to talk as a country about systemic issues of racism, prejudice and bias.
and how they affect the relationship between police and communities. also made the same point when i was in st. paul, minnesota, earlier this year meeting with families and staff members at the school where philando castille worked. he worked at a school in st. paul. beloved by the faculty and kids at the school. he was kills in an interaction with police officers in falcon heights, minnesota. and i went to mourn with the families and talk with the families. talk with the reality that castille was stopped more than 40 times by police before the incident where he was killed. i urged the parents and educators i met with not to sink into despair but instead to work with others in the community to make sure that an event like that would never happen again. i wanted them to act on the same belief that i want my daughters
to understand. that these issues can be resolved, but that it will take concerted efforts at all levels of government. national, state and local. because reality is that for many of the biggest issues, including tensions between police and communities of color, they're not going to be settled solely by decision by the president or congress or even a bill passed in a state legislature. the department of justice can monitor policing, can identify violations of civil rights and can order changes in practices and policies to prevent these violations. that's a start. but what's also needed are citizens who will work with others and vote strategically to demand changes in police training to include bias, cultural competencies and ways to defuse tense situations in their police interactions. and an end to racial profiling, to demand an end to
discriminatory practices by prosecutors and courts that have a dire impact on poor people. the same activism beginning at the local level to make the difference in the creation of jobs, better housing and improved mass transit and so many other issues. but this won't happen unless people have the knowledge, skills and inclination to get involved that can be learned in school. i know there are schools around the country doing a good job of this. and there are advocacy groups started by former supreme court justice sandra day o'connor that are working to get more schools involved in civic education. one organization that's helping to make this happen is the james madison memorial fellowship foundation which was established by congress in 1986. when i was a teacher, i was fortunate to be a madison fellow char which allowed me to take classes on the teaching of the history of the constitution and participate in a community of
talented and passionate social study educators. generations of madison fellows selected from all 50 states are in classrooms across the country ensuring their students have a good understanding of the foundations of american democracy. one person who is doing this kind of work extraordinarily well is johanna hays who is a high school social studies teacher in waterbury, connecticut, in addition to being the 2016 national teacher of the year. she's passionate about teaching her students at kennedy high school about history and the importance of community service and their obligation to improve the human condition. she's the adviser to the school's helping people out everywhere club. she and her students participate in the annual walk for autism and rally for life and have raised thousands towards cancer research. she points out that students want to help but they need role models to show them how. we need more teachers like johanna and more schools and districts to support them.
so what are the elements of a robust and relevant civic education? first, students need knowledge. they need to know the constitution and the legislative process. they also need to understand history. our students ought to be truly familiar with the primary source that have shaped our nation's history. with the declaration of independence and constitution. and dr. king's letter from a birmingham jail to name a few. it's not enough to be able to quote from these documents. they need to know why they remain relevant today. they need to put themselves into other shoes and to appreciate the different perspectives that have shaped our nation's history. we should teach students that's slavery is not just a scar on our national character erased by the civil war. we should teach them technology and wrestle with the way that ugly legacy continues to shape our country and helps explain the treatment of people of color
in america today. the way the new national museum of african-american history and culture on the national mall tells this story is both powerful and unforgettable. i visited and was filled with horror as i read the bill of sale -- bill of sale -- for a 16-year-old girl names holly. i gazed upon a statue of thomas jefferson with the names of the human beings he owned inscribed on a stack of bricks behind him. as i stood in front of what was once emmett till's coffin. that's not the only story the museum tells. it also tells the story of resistance and dignity in the face of oppression. from turner, harriet tubman and the tuskegee airmen. a wonderful new story for educators. students should understand the constitution protects the right of nfl quarterback colin
kaepernick to protest during the national anthem and why players across the country, including high school students, are doing the same. and they should also understand and be able to explain with evidence why some people are offended by that decision or would choose a different way to express their views. civics shouldn't be an add-on. it can be made a part of every class. not just social studies and history but read, writing, science and math. studying climate change in science class can be broadened and made more rel vent by asking students to find out whether their local government is prepared to respond. math can be made more engaging by having students research the ratio of liquor stores to grocery stores to population in various neighborhoods. and then asking the mayor why that is the case. beyond knowledge, students need civics skills. they should be able to write persuasive letters to the editor or mayor or member of congress
and learn to speak at public meetings. in addition, they should have opportunities to do democracy. when i was teaching, i had my seniors do research projects tackling local problems in the community. i can recall students who worked with a local non-profit to end the dumping of garbage in their neighborhood. to support urban agricult are products and advocate for more affordable housing. they learned they could make a difference and that there are many ways to serve. join the military is certainly one way to serve. but so, too, is assisting the homeless or fighting sexual violence or tutoring younger children. by getting involved in real issues, students learn it's not enough just to shout about their disappointments and criticize the ideas of others. they need to offer solutions. they have to work together to advocate for those slulgs solu see that they're implemented and
understand that change takes time. i'm proud we as a nation provide opportunities through americorps to support people who want to give a year or more giving back to a community in need. we currently have 80,000 folks serving in this program. over half supportingor public schools. and we should have far, far more. when i was an under graduate, i taught civics one day a week in a school that served largely low-income students of color in boston. i also tutored young people in the mission maine public housing development and the roxbury section of boston and ran a summer camp there. with my fellow harvard under graduates, we lived for the summer in the community in the mission main housing project which sadly at the time was rife with crime and drugs and violence. but also rich with hope and resiliency and tenacity. we learned about those challenges and those commitments in the community in a way that i will never forget. in fact, those experiences
helped shape my decision to pursue a career as a teacher and a principal in the very same neighborhood where i volunteered as an undergraduate. we also want our students to look beyond their own interests to their own -- to their enlightened self-interest in the common good. i recently visited flint, michigan, and while i may never live in flint, i recognize that it's in my interest to make sure that children and families in flint and every other city in the country have safe water to drink and an opportunity to fulfill their potential. service both helps students understand the challenges in the community, helps them understand themselves and also helps them understand the importance of the common good. colleges also have an important role to play in preparing young people to fulfill their responsibilities as citizens. back in 1947, the truman
commission on higher education for democracy concluded that educating for democracy should come first among the principle goals for higher education. should come first among the principle goals for higher education. that is just as true today, but this goal too often has been forgotten at times. and at times education policymakers, educators, students and families have approached colleges if its only worthwhile goal was a means of success to the competitive job market. it has to be about more than that. but it's k-12 education or higher education, we have to see it as preparing students, yes, for college and careers and, yes, for civic participation. for citizenship. for caring about the common good and contributing to the common good. the good news is that this kind of civic education, civic education that digs into challenging issues and teaches knowledge, skills and inclinations to serve actually works. it changes students behavior as
adults. research compiled by the campaign for the civic mission of schools shows that students who receive effective civic education are more likely to vote and discuss politics at home, four times more likely to volunteer and work on community issues, and more confident in their ability to speak publicly and communicate with elected officials. this type of civic learning can prepare students for demanding careers in a globally competitive labor market because they'll learn to think critically, write creatively and persuasively and work with diverse groups of people. but the biggest and most important outcome of all is high-quality civic education prepares students to help the nation solve difficult, challenging, complex issues to make it a better, equitable place to live with genuine equity for all. it must be part of a well-rounded education and must be at the foundation of the future, not only of our economy,
but of our democracy. thank you for this opportunity to talk with you. i look forward to your questions. [ applause ] >> thank you, mr. secretary. even before the lunch, there's a lot of interest. there are cards coming up and stuff coming on twitter. we try to be in the 21st century with our questions. just to tack on to the end of your speech. you engaged in a lot of wonderful sort of rhetoric of where we should be in the civic space in terms of education and talking about current issues. it's one thing to talk about it and another thing to implement it. how do you implement it? >> three thoughts on that.
one is later this week, we'll put out guidance on title 4, which is a funding stream as part of the every student succeeds act that states and districts could use in support of civics education, social studies to provide communities of practice around issues of civic education. two is schools and districts need to make the decision that this is a priority. and one of our challenges during the no child left behind era was that in some schools and districts, the focus on english and math was so narrow that it crowded out social studies, science, computer science. and we've got an opportunity with every student succeeds act for students and districts to rethink that and think about what is an excellent education and to ensure that includes social studies and civic education. and the third piece is to lift up teacher leaders like johanna. all over the country, there are great -- there are great -- it's
well deserved. there are great social studies educators or great civic educators. sometimes they aren't even teachers. sometimes it's a science teacher who cares about issues of environmental protection. sometimes it's math teacher who is deeply concerned about economic opportunity in the community. but there are educators in every school and district who could be empowered to lead within their school communities around civic education. >> a couple of follow-ups to this. here's one. and i think this goes to current events. tonight, of course, is the final presidential debate. there are a couple of questions on that front. do you think there's been an increase in bullying in schools due to the tone of the race? >> you want to ask them together or -- >> let me just throw one other
in here. no, go ahead. that sufices. >> look, i can't comment specifically on the 2016 election, but what i can say is i worry intensely about ensuring every school is a safe environment for every child. the first thing i did at the beginning of january and the last thing arne did on his last day as secretary at the end of december was to sign a joint tloert school districts and school communities about the importance of creating environments of religious tolerance because there's no question we've seen over the last few years an increase in anti-muslim bullying in schools. we also worry intensely about the issue of bullying of students who are immigrant students. and i think we have a challenge to make sure school is a safe place for all kids. i think it is possible to have constructive conversations about issues of civic engagement and
about political debates and at the same time have as a nonne t nonnegotiable principle that school has to be a safe environment. >> i know you can't comment on the race in depth but have the debates and the race said anything about our civics education since you dove so deeply into it? has it opened up a scar and just what's lacking? >> i think there's a danger always in this conversation about civic education to focus just on immediate events. i would say if you look broadly at where we are as a society, we've got a lot of work to do to make sure our young people are prepared to engage as citizens. part of why i raised the issue around the relationship between police and communities of color is that we've got to make sure that young people who are rightly very concerned about what they see and scared and
parents who are scared understand how we use the levers of government to try to tackle those challenges. that we can talk to the mayor and the city council about the kinds of training that are provided to police officers. that that's something we can impact if we engage at the local level. so, you know, i don't know if -- there may be reasons in the current discourse. there's more attention on this issue, but i think it's deeper than that. we've got to ask ourselves as a society, how do we do better preparing all of our citizens for citizenship. the president was at a local high school and touted the high graduation rates in high school and test scores. but one thing that this questioner asked, it comes against -- excuse me. higher graduation rates but in some cases, lower test scores. the questioner asked whether or not students should be more
college ready when they graduated from high school? you said at the beginning of the administration you believe high school and college career ready standards must be a reality of students for all students. how do you bridge that gap between these record high school graduation rates and in some schools record low test scores in critical areas like math and science and so forth. >> we worry a lot about that. if you go to any community college around the country, you'll find 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% of students who are entering required to take remedial courses. essentially high school classes while in college for which they and their families are paying college prices. and so we've got to figure out how we ensure that graduating from high school really means ready for what's next. ready for college and careers. it is encouraging that 40-plus states have been deeply engaged in the work of raising their standards. the every student succeeds act requires every state commit to college and career ready
graduation standards such as their students will graduate from high school ready for credit-bearing course work or good jobs. so i think we've made progress over the last eight years in bringing attention to this work. and there's professional development that's happening for educators. there's work that folks are doing on teacher preparation and teacher support. but there's clearly more to do. and one of the things we've been careful to say is, y we're very proud the graduation rates have gone up significantly and very proud they've gone up significantly for african-american students, latino students, low-income students. students that had large high school graduation gaps. but we've got to stay focused. at the state level, district level in ensuring all students graduate ready. the every student succeeds act creates plans that will achieve that. and one of the things we've tried to make clear is that states have a responsibility to make sure those plans ensure opportunity for students in every community. can't just be in some places
kids get access to college ready course work and others they don't. can't be that in some places kids get advanced placement or individual baccalaureate. some places kids can take as we see chemistry and physics and algebra 2 and other places they can't. states have a responsibility to ensure all students have access and the implementation of every student succeeds act, one measure of its success will be, are we able to close those equity gaps? states seem to be vig ilant abot that and the department needs to be vigilant about that. >> this raises the very act you cite. recently in fact, over the summer, you've had breakfasts with various colleagues, including some members of the club here. you were talking about new regulations you'll be promulgating. this is met with stiff resistance. you want to bridge this funding gap, level the playing field and there are members of congress who are saying you're breaking
the spirit if not the outright intent of the brand-new law just signed in december when you are trying to implement these regulations, trying to level the playing field. how do you answer those charges? >> so as a high school social studies teach elet me give the history and historical context on this question. so when the original elementary and secondary education act was passed, it was passed as a civil rights law intended to address gaps in opportunity. one of the things the naacp and ldf found was that districts were actually taking the money that was provided for esca and intended to benefit the highe e students and using that's to backfill local and state obligations so students in high-need schools were still getting significantly less. they were not getting the money
intended to support them through the original esca. and at that time, language was added to the law around supplement not supplant. this is a 50-year struggle to ensure the federal dollars are, in fact, sup elemental. not used in a way that supplants local and state obligations. what we see is still today, 50 years later, there are communities where you can go, same school district, ten blocks. a school that serves affluent kids spending 25%, 30% more than a school ten blocks away serving high need students. that's clearly a violation of the very words of the law. suppleme supplement, not supplant. it's a part of the every student succeeds act. there were some changes to the language around supplement not supplant that require us to regulate and make clear how we're going to finally deliver on the words of the law. supplement not supplant. and our regulations that are now out for comment are designed to
do exactly that. to ensure that the federal dollars are genuinely supplemental and ensure the resources that are intended back in 1965 to get to the highest needs students actually get there. there are folks calling for ignoring the supplement not supplant provision. they are saying, no, no, don't try to ensure that the law is followed. now on the other hand you have senator murray and congressman scott who have been clear that supplement not supplant is in the law and that they see our regulations as implementing the very words of the law. and so we're taking public comment. we will respond to that public comment in a final rule, but we're clear that the purpose of this law is to get resources to the highest needs students. >> you aren't overregulating? you're upholding the law. >> exactly right. >> let's see. speaking of inequality, how should educators address the tack -- tackle the issue of
growing economic inequality in the united states and what's the role of financial literacy? >> one of the most encouraging things about the improvement in graduation rates is we know students who graduate with a high school diploma are much better positioned for the economy. but the reality is that the fastest growing areas of our economy require post-secondary education. one thing the education sector can do to address income inequality is to ensure more students are prepared for college or careers that provide family sustaining wages and ensure that students don't just get to college but through college. that's k-12 and in higher education in terms of the support students need to actually finish while they're there. from the beginning, when the president was working on the stimulus and responding to the economic crisis that he found when he arrived at president, from the beginning, the president was clear we need to take emergency steps to get the economy become on track but also
need to make smart, long-term investments in our future and that education was central to that. that's the reason behind race to the top, behind the large investment we made in the school improvement grants and improvements in our struggling high schools in particular and struggling schools generally. so we believe that improving the quality of education is inextricably linked to improving our economy and ensuring opportunity for all people. the other thing i'd add is the president's proposed something call preschool for all. we'd ensure that all 4-year-olds would have access to pre-k from low-income and moderate income families. we've got to acknowledge that given the brain saerncience, a of learning takes place in 0 to 4 and our failure to invest in universal access to pre-k, ultimately for 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds, that's a failure to invest in our long-term success.
so we've got to sudden the work to strengthen k-12 and higher education. it's also time for an investment -- a big investment in early learning because we know it will have a long and large long-term return. >> that raises an interesting follow-up. you want universal preschool. in fact, i believe you were at a forum earlier this week where you talked to melissa harris perry about this. but if you want more funding for schooling, how does that work when trying to put forward these new regulations which are upsetting congress who is holding the purse strings? it's going to blow back at you. how do you deal with that? >> ultimately these things are interrelated in that at the end of the day, we've got to realize as a society, this is true for all of our elected officials, that we have a stake in the civic other people's children. that we have a stake in the success of the kid in the neighborhood down the road in the city down the road in the
rural community down the road living on a native american reservation in the next state over. so when we say we want to continue to direct resources that should be going to high need kids and affluent kids, we're undermining our long-term future as a country. we say we can't afford to invest in early learning, we're making a very shortsided decision because the research evidence shows that early learning has an 8-1, 9-1 return on investment if it's high quality. if we invest in high quality early learning we'll save money later on prisons, on the cost of social services that result from students not having the skills and opportunities they deserve. >> you mentioned prisons. you rolled out a new program in trying to partner with a lot of universities, with those who are incarcerated. for a long time, people could get geds, high school degrees, other degrees while
incarcerated. what's significantly different and new about this program versus what's been available within correction at institutions for decades? >> the history on this is that in the mid-90s, congress made a terrible mistake. they banned access to pell grants for folks who are incarcerated. prior to that if you're incarcerated you were able to use pell grants if eligible to support higher education. when congress banned pell grant access for folks who are incarcerated, many prison education programs are providing higher education opportunities shut down around the country. what we've done is through the president's experimental authority, the experimental authority under the higher education act welaunched a pilot. they are providing what will be 12,000 students with the opportunity to pursue a higher education while incarcerated. we know from the research evidence that those who get an
edges while inka education while incarcerated are less likely to return to prison. a study that showed a 43% reduction in recidivism for participation in any educational program. so this is another place where it's a smart investment because we reap the returns in folks not going back to prison, folks leaving aside crime and focussing on supporting themselves and their families. and i've had the opportunity to visit some of these prison education programs and what you see is the folks will tell you, part of how they ended up there is either the educational opportunities they didn't have, the first chance they didn't have, or the educational opportunities they didn't take advantage of. but they recognize that through higher education, through acquiring skills, they can change their lives. and this is a place where as a country, we want to undo the
damage of mass incarceration. one place to start is ensuring access to educational opportunity. >> this goes back to funding. so how do you navigate that congressional land mine field when deal with the regulations piece, preschool piece. how your going to fund this ideal program? >> on second chance pell we know from the history of when pell access was available to folks incarcerated, it's actually very, very small. i think it's about 1% of -- or maybe less than 1% of pell spending. we currently have a pell surplus. the president proposed in the 2017 budget, which is a budget that respects the constraints we need to given our broader fiscal challenges as a country. in his 2017 budget he's restored pell grants for those incarcerated and within the pell budget. this is a place again where we risk as a society being penny
wise and pound foolish. we spend much more over the long run if a person leaves prison, commits further crimes and returns to prison. >> different subject. common core. since you have addressed standards. the question, you and the president have praised schools for achieving common core standards but school districts and politicians on both sides of the aisle have called it a punishment-driven shotgun approach to achieving high education standards. they want better testing stomachstomach system -- systems, curriculum support. some parochial schools say common core standards are incombat patable with a catholic education and called it a federal overreach which is not education but rather the training and production of workers for an economic machine.
and the standards treat student as nothing more than human capital. do your crit ics have a point? >> lead me start with the historical context on this. so the role of the federal government is not to tell states what their standards are. what we've said and what essa actually requires is that states have college and career ready standards but they determine the content of those standards. some states have chosen the common core. those states did so after the common core developed by educators and governors and state chiefs working together to develop those standards. those were state developed, state chosen. and so sometimes folks get the history wrong on this. our position has always been college and career ready standards. it's up to states. what the content is of those standards. that said, adopting college and career ready strpds is just the first step. states then have to follow with professional development support, with training for
teachers and principals. and we're seeing many states engaged in that work. many states have used federal resources whether it's race to the top or dollars to support strengthening teacher preparation and professional development so that they can successfully teach their students to college and career-ready standards. we've got a ways -- how to get there is ensuring the standards that students are appointed towards from k to 12 is college and career readiness. >> that helps close the 18% gap of students that are still not getting out with the proper skill-sets and so forth? >> that will help, but it's not -- there's no silver bullets in education. so standards have to happen alongside other steps that we need to take. mentioned early learning. we know that schools that pay attention to chronic absenteeism
and the kids who, because they're chronically absent, we can see that something else is going on. and ensure they get counseling or mental health services or help for their families. they've been able to improve their graduation rates. we know that schools that are diverse and that are intentionally diverse that bring together students across lines of class and race perform better. we have decades of research evidence that's suggests low-income students who have the opportunity to go to schools with affluent students will not only do better academically but they and their peers are better prepared for the diverse world we'll inhabit. we just had a two-day convening at the department. anyone who says just change this one thing and everything will be perfect, that's clearly not right. we've got to do multiple things to close that graduation rate gap and to ensure that when kids graduate they graduate ready for
what's next. >> charter schools. you have said what i worry most about is we have some states that have done a really great job with charter authorizing and so have generally high quality charters on the other hand you have places like michigan, a history of a low bar and charter and willingness to hold charters to high standards. what's your view on where it should be by the time you leave office and how do you plan to get there as someone that sights your own education for saving your life and trajectory and what of non-charter public schools. for sometime one of the arguments was over resources about charter getting better resources in public education. there's actually a second question tied to this. a few days ago the naacp national board called for a
moritorium until laws are advised to make it as accountable and transparent as charter schools. do you agree or if you do do you start funding charter schools as they recommend it? >> so let me start with this, we are fortunate i think as a country to have some high performing charters that do a great job and great opportunities to students. charters helping students not only perform at higher levels academically but go on at much higher rates and succeed that. that is good. we should have more schools like that and i think any arbitrary cap on the growth of high performing charters is a mistake in terms of our goal of trying to improve opportunity for all kids. that said where states are doing a bad job on charter authorizing that has to change. i talked about the example of michigan. we have states that have set a
low bar for getting a charter and when charters perform poorly they take action to improve them or close them which is the essence of the charter school compact. charter schools were supposed to be more autonomy in exchange for greater accountability and some states have not followed through on that. that is a problem. those decisions are made at the state level but what we have done is two things. one is we prosided resources to improve charter authorizing in states and worked with states to strengthen their practices around reviewing the quality of charters, reviewing the quality of charter applications and two increasing the supply of great high performing charters. but to the extent that what folks are saying is that they
want it and we have charter doing a great job for kids that want to grow, they should be able to and we have to ask what is best for students and parents and students and parents aren't as concerned about the governance model as about is my child getting a quality education. it's access to great opportunity. >> what do you propose about the quality of pay. one teacher says i worked 12 hours yesterday didn't have time for lunch and didn't have time for lunch.
>> it's actually help us teach. >> i think we see across the country, we see states that have not made the investment they should in their education system. we did a report earlier this year, the department, looking at the difference in state investment and prisons versus k through 12 education and what we found is that we severe the last 30 years rate of increase in investment spending and three times as high as the rate of increase and spending on k-12 education. as a society we have resources where states should be spending
significantly more on teacher salaries? absolutely. and should we be paying more to teachers? especially teachers willing to serve in the highest needs communities? where we have real demand? absolutely and the president proposed that. the president proposed a billion dollars for an initiative called best job in the world that would support professional development, incentives, career ladders for teachers that teach in the highest needs communities and more resources and focussing on those resources on teefers. one of them is early learning. we did a study on pre-k pay and found pre-k teachers are making half what they would be making if they were working in an elementary school. which again suggests that our priorities are not right. so this is a place where i agree
with the questioner. we should pay our teachers very well because they're essential to the future of our country and we need to make sure that the work conditions are good. it's not just a question of teacher pay. i think of a place like detroit. if the water is leaking from the ceiling and rodents across floor those are not going to make teaching a profession that people want and profession that people want to stay in for the long-term and this is one of the reasons it's so important. because if you consistently under resource the highest immediate schools the result will be poor working conditions in those schools and the inability to retain the great teachers that our highest need students need. >> quickly, out of time, an issue with one of your senior staff who had to re-sign over
fraud and financial abuse, have you been able to clean up the issues in the inspector general's office? >> so this is about an employee in our it department who made mistakes and is accountable for those mistakes. chose ultimately to re-sign. he is no longer with the department. we have a very strong team around our it and we are very focused as folks are across the administration on continuously strengthening cyber security. this is actually cyber security awareness month. just came from a cyber security convening at the department this morning and we're very focused on making sure that our it systems are as strong as possible. that we protect the security of data and that we ensure that we are providing services.
so for example it's a tool we built through our investment and the strength of our i.t. systems and work across the administration to leverage technology on behalf of taxpayers and students. it allows students to find information. to find out about their graduation rates. how much people make who have graduated from that school. how folks that graduated from that school are able to repay their loans. it's a great tool that remains available that's continuously evolving to try to provide services and i.t. is a strength now of the department but as is true for any employer there is sometimes employees that make mistakes and we have to ensure that stops. >> i was in the home stretch here before i get the last
question, press club at 8:30 a reliable source. we have an upcoming luncheon on november 21st and the general manager who has been here before so an update again on various issues that have happened in the local subway system in washington. final question, i present you. [ applause ] >> so we're running out of time. very quickly what advice would you give to a 12-year-old kid raised on public assistance that wants to be you? >> two things.
one is to have faith in what's possible. you know, i am only standing here only alive today because of what new york city public schoolteachers did for me. one of the reasons the president and first lady care so much about education is they know the difference education made in their lives and the tubts they have been able to have so i always try to say have faith because i think sometimes as a young person it could feel like this is the only way it could ever be and sometimes they don't even have a vision because they are hopeless about their future. one is faith in what is possible and to see my example of what education can be. two is to work hard in school.
there's a debate is it poverty that matters? schools that matter, the reality is they both matter. schools are imbedded in communities and schools can save lives but they also face all the challenges that exist in the community. school can be the difference and the path and give you a skills and opportunity to have a different life and have life be different for you or your family. those will be the two things. >> thank you for information on national press club programs you can go on to press.org:
. in our news i knew i could find information on that and that helped me figure out what and how to form my outline for my piece. >> and come up with what my actual theme was. i was doing research at the same time and coming up with more ideas for what i can film and i come up with an idea. i'm like that will be a great shot and i'll think about that and that will give me a good idea and i do research about that and the whole process is about building on other things and scratching what doesn't work and you keep going until you finally get the finished product. >> this year's theme, your message to washington d.c. tell us what is the most urgent
issue for the new president and congress. it's open to all middle school or high school students grade 6 through 12 with $100,000 awarded in cash prizes. students can work alone or in a group of up to 3. and include some cspan programming. the $100,000 in prizes and will go to the student or team with the best overall and can help us spread the word to student film makers. >> the affordable care act's annual open enrollment period begins on november 1st. health and human services secretary sylvia burwell talked about enrollment rates and the
insurance plans available to enrollees. this is 25 minutes. fred is the name i gave to the brain tumor blocking the flow of spinal fluid town my body. in january of 2006 i went down to duke university and my dad's insurance paid $450,000 and we had surgery to repair the damage fred had done. i was 22 years old at the time and after i got out i had to get
cobra coverage to keep my insurance to pay for pre-existing conditions. after exhausting cobra i was paying 55% of my income as in home support provider for people with disabilities on health care. that included $1,203 out of pocket each month for my narcolepsy medication. i was living on $8,000 for the entire year before the affordable care act went into effect. since the law has gone into effect i went from 55% of my income and $5,000 deductible to 7% of my income and $500 deductible. i went from living on $8,000 a year to having far greater percentage of my income available to spend as i felt necessary. every year since the first open
enrollment on the affordable care act i have been able to find a plan that provided me with better support and save me even more money. so i would love to introduce to you the secretary of health and human services sylvia burwell. [ applause ] >> thank you very much nathan and i appreciate you joining us this morning. we are quickly approaching an important and momentous date in november. we faced years of partisan misinformation and pun dents talking about it and you have
dissected one part of it or the other. we have been building to this point for four years. i'm talking about of course november 1st. the day that the health insurance marketplace is going to open up for our 4th open enrollment and that is the opportunity for every american to sign up for quality health coverage that doesn't currently have it and with that way less than two weeks away. i want to outline our vision for this 4th open enrollment and the marketplace going forward. any conversation that looks around i believe should start with a little bit of a look back and today it's easy to forget where the health insurance market was before the affordable care act. americans with pre-existing conditions and diabetes and those that have beaten cancer often found themselves completely locked out. many of our friends and family members would have been out of work. if we ever lost the coverage we
had our lost our jobs. even for people that could have been able to buy coverage in theory there was no easy way to actually compare plans or shop. middle class families that didn't have coverage through a job usually got no help in paying for that coverage. women could be charged more for coverage than men because of their gender and as a result nearly 50% of americans have no coverage of any kind. americans fortunate enough to have health insurance didn't always get value and coverage didn't ensure access to quality care. and because of annual or lifetime limits on coverage millions of american families that play by the rules and pay their medium yums every month. we're still one illness away or the very real possibility that they have to forego care for a
life threatening disease. it's also rapidly growing more and more expenses. families, businesses and government all struggle with the burden of rising costs. premiums for family coverage rose by an average of almost 8% every year. after years of talk we took the biggest step forward in a swren ration. using ideas that were born on the left and on the right to create a market-based solution. first, we made historic progress on access. 20 million more americans have coverage thanks to the law our uninsured rate is the lowest in our nation's history. that can't be said enough. today no american can be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition and young adults can stay on their parents plan through 26.
second we strengthened the quality of coverage. that's true whether you're newly covered or you have had health insurance for years. today more than 138 million americans can get annual physicals, cancer screenings and other preventive services without a co-payment. plans are required to cover the core benefits you would expect from your insurance. no surprises and no inshurnt can impose annual or lifetime limits on dollar coverage and we finally started to bring health care cost under control. for more than 157 million americans that have health insurance through their employer, premium growth has slowed. in fact overall health care prices have been rising in the slowest rate in 50 years and the medicare trust fund has been extended by 11 years. this is real progress and it's also worth noting what hasn't happened. some claim that the law would be a job killer. in reality u.s. businesses added
15.3 million jobs since the law passed and there's been 79 straight month of private sector job growth and the longest streak on record. some claim million of people would be kicked off health insurance because of the law but in reality the people that get coverage through their employer has stayed about the same. while the people that are working but uninsured have plummeted. the predictions about the affordable care act have not come true and ib stead we're expanding and improving coverage and improving care. thanks to the law we're starting to build a health care system that makes american communities and american communities stronger. insurers compete on the cost, quality and variety of their
products instead of trying to cherry pick the healthiest consumers. in addition thanks to the marketplace we now have a transparent market. consumers can openly shop and choose a product that meets their needs and it means people have different options in terms of cost sharing and doctor networks and prescription drug coverage. with three open enrollments now done we're starting to see how these reforms are driving other important changes. first the marketplace gave consumers the opportunity to shop and they're using it. and more than 60% of those actually switched plans. high level of consumer engagement help explain people that buy coverage on the marketplace or are satisfied with their coverage is people that have insurance through
their employer first time they're able to shop for coverage. it turns out that a and it's and help deliver better care at lower cost. we heard that from a few of them this past summer and fall. we heard from is surkssuers tha doctors for the quality an not the quantity of care. we heard from new strategy to deliver more coordinated better care. finally, the marketplace is supporting workers in our changing economy. thanks to the marketplace entrepreneurs can now chase their ideas and innovations without being locked into a job just to keep their health insurance. if you work at a start up or company that doesn't offer
benefits you can still get covered. if you're taking time off to transition between jobs like i will in january, then you don't have to lose access to quality health care. that doesn't mean that the road has been perfectly smooth. building a new market is never easy. as i said before i expect this to be a transition period to the marketplace. bringing them online with actual data and costs. we're enhancing the stability of the marketplace and making it stronger for the future. it also hasn't helped that at nearly every turn we had to over come attempts to repeal and undermine the law through litigation. in this administration our
vision to the future isn't a return to the marketplace we can't look backwards in a hopeless search for alternatives that aren't viable or don't exist. we do have an opportunity to build on that progress but as we said before to make substantial changes changes to encourage competition we'll need cooperation from congress and hopefully we'll see more bipartisan efforts to make improvements. we want to work together we need a partner. in the meantime we're going to continue to work with the partners we have to use all the tools we have to build a stronger and more stable marketplace. of course the biggest opportunity we have to strengthen the marketplace is right in front of us. this upcoming open enrollment. this is the last open enrollment through this administration and we want to make it count as we
have every year we have new challenges this fall but we're confident and excited because we'll enter this open enrollment with new strengths. most important we know from three years of experience that the marketplace offers a product that people want and people need. most people will be able to find a plan less than $75. consumers will continue to have affordable options available and this year will make it easier for consumers to find and enroll in a plan that works for them and their family.
and get americans information about coverage and financial assistance. outreach strategy to reach consumers through the right channels with the right messages at the right time. we're going to take advantage and their very existence i didn't even know about and if you can watch people play video games and i certainly have no idea that they have 10 million visitors a day. these are all good things to know once i have a little more time in january. and like in previous open
enrollments we'll ramp up our efforts around deadlines that drive consumers, especially young adults to act. and every year we project how many people we think will sign up through the marketplace because it's important to set a clear goal to manage too. we know the marketplace is strong but we know that it can grow even more so today we're releasing our open enrollment projection for this upcoming open enrollment period we analyzed the best data we have and the marketplace eligible unensured and looking at trends for people purchasing coverage off of the marketplace and might be eligible for the tax credits
if they shop on the marketplace. the remaining uninsured are harder to reach. but with better data on our current consumers and we have new and better tools to reach. as we look to this new open enrollment period we project that the marketplace will grow by another million people. we expect 13.8 million people. we know it won't be easy but we're confident that americans will choose to enroll when they discover that the quality of affordable options that are available to them. in closing as the president said during the debate over the law we kint come to fear the future. we kale to shape it. a future where our economy is stronger and millions of americans are better off. a future where americans can get
the coverage they need to stay healthy so they can turn around pay it forward and provide care for others. with this open enrollment we'll go farther toward that future and with that i'm happy to take some questions. >> do you know how many people paid the penalty in 2015? >> in terms of those eligible. and marketplace insurance that are currently uninsured.
>> the insurer concerns do you think if you're not able to get more young people in or boost the overall number then that's a problem in terms of insurance we are at a place where the market is sustainable according to its size. we believe there's more folks out there that can get the benefits and that's what we'll aim to do. with regard to the question of stability and issuers and the insurers one of the things we have done is focus on a number of different things that contribute to that and you're familiar with the changes we have done around special enrollment periods. you're familiar with the changes we have done around risk adjustment which is one of the three stabilizing programs that were put in place and we're going to change the way we
calculate things like how a person counts if they move in and out of the market mace or how high cost drugs are accounted for. things that we believe will stabilize or help stabilize the markets. the forms i will describe where we're bringing players together so they can share the best practices and what is happening in places where we see success or part of that. if one can add to it and change it that's something we want to do and it's relevant to the 10.7 that i was just asked about because we know that about 40% of those folks are 18 to 34. a younger group of people. so an important part of it so i guess the answer in part of the form is it is one element of many but our big focus is we know that that 10.7 is out there. we know that there's people like nathan and that's the big goal and objective as we go into this open enrollment. >> yes.
>> you mention that you're hoping there's going to be congressional partnership in the future to make adjustments to the marketplace. can you talk about the top two or three things you'd like to see con kbresz do to further stabilize these marketplaces? >> i think actually one of the things that would be very important beyond the issue of stable sairgs is getting to the important things that you would do in a highly complex piece of legislation like this. it would be important to take care of and could be done quickly. the fact that it's different in different places and while that doesn't get to your specific stability and market there's things that are important to improving the function. with regard to the questions of stability the president oulined some of the most important things that we think are -- should be focused on. number one of those is in
markets where there isn't -- where we are having issues and trying to get greater competition in, making sure that you have the backstop of a public option if you don't have that kind of competition. number two, as the president has mentioned the idea of how we think about issues further support for those who are in a band that aren't currently receiving support and i think the third thing which is timely and important that people are focused on is the issue of high cost drugs and how we think about what are are the best tools we as a nation have to address that and certainly in the president's budget we have a number of proposals. one i will highlight is the question of can we negotiate. >> there's a lot of talk about insurers getting payments can you speak to whether you're
going to be able to take any action. whether it's a judgment fund or some other means to make sure that they can get the payments they requested. >> because the jujt fund is an issue handled by the justice department i'll defer comments to them in terms of the question of the case before we're done handling this. >> as some insurers are raising their rates i understand that tax credits will go up as well but they're predicting that 3 million people next year on the marketplace will be unsubsidized and i wonder if you have any concerns or thoughts about whether the coverage will stay affordable for them. >> in terms of those that do face a category unsubsidized there's a number of things that are important to refleck on and one is that in a category of
people and as we analyze what has happened to the number of uninsured in the united states during this period there's been a drop of 40% there in term of the number of uninsured so people outside of the marketplace are people taking advantage. many of those people you might think are people that could get into the system because they weren't blocked out with pre-existing conditions. so we have seen growth in that. the other thing that's important is the importance of shopping. we now have a marketplace and when you can see people can go in and shop and we're giving people tools to do that in terms of shopping whether it's for including the drugs that you can shop for our doctors or how you shop in terms of premiums and deductibles. while it is not an analysis for
that particular group we know that loost year for those that came in and shopped the average savings was $500 a year. and this group of people that you're referring to and it's best for them from an affordability and quality perspective. >> with that, thank you all and november 1st. [ applause ] >> recovering two events. national security at 9:00 a.m. eastern on cspan 2 director of national intelligence james clapper on terrorism. live coverage on cspan and
cspan.org or listen live on your smartphone with the cspan radio app. >> every four years the presidential candidates turn from politics to humor at the al smith memorial foundation dinner to raise money for catholic charities at new york's historic waldorf historia hotel. >> i never quite understood the logistics of dinners like this and now the absence of one individual was three of us. >> i'm glad to see you here tonight. mr. vice president i am that man. >> it's an honor to share with a deseb dent of the great al smith and al your great grandfather
was my favorite kind of governor. the kind that ran for president and lost and hillary clinton and dond trump. thursday night at 9:00 eastern and listen at 9:00 p.m. eastern with the cspan radio app. >> experiences in the u.s. as an undocumented immigrant by underground american dream. it's undocumented immigrant that became a wall street executive. she is interviewed by migration
policy institution information policy program senior fellow and director. >> as a little girl, not having your parents with you and seeing them every few months. first of all you feel they're a little bit of strangers to you because when i would see my parents they would come bearing lots of presents and when i came to visit them in the u.s. it was summer vacation so it was a very different experience and -- than having parents that are with you every single day. >> afterwards sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on book tv. go to booktv.org for the schedule. voter anger and it's effect on the presidential race. they moderate a panel of political scientists and
reporters. >> good afternoon. it is a bittersweet honor and privilege to welcome everyone to this symposium honoring our friend and colleague. today's symposium voter anger is based on sue's 1996 of book. in the new york times obituary they wrote the following and i think as i quote this, think about this is what she wrote 20 years ago in that book she identified deep seeded voter anger. fuelled by an uncertain economy. cultural divisions and this
enchantment with government as a force that politicians need to understand. people hate government she wrote because they expect more than government can possibly deliver. particularly in this era of budget con trants. and i heard a preview of the current political environment. remember peter finch, with the movie network and screaming, i'm mad as hell and i'm not going to take it anymore. she wrote in her introduction. the question of the decade is, she continues what happens now that that window has been opened so think about that. 1996. three weeks before she passed away last may one of our colleagues visited with them at their town homeful they sat outside discussing the current presidential campaign. sue was unsurprised at the
unfolding of events at that time. i expect to hear today from our keynote speaker and panel list, sue was well ahead of her time and recognizing the growing anger of the public toward our government and politicians. she reminded them just as she correctly predicted the no knee she believed it was not a foregone conclusion. she is one of the best and most respected scholars in her field. what she didn't say at the time is she had given the top
researcher of the entire university. this is but one of the many awards she received over the years including a best book award by business week and library joushl as well as the american society for public administration for the best lead article and public administration review. sue was a fellow in the national academy of public administration and she was particularly proud of the fact that her work has been cited in three separate supreme court decisions. the founding dean of the school of public policy that recruited her at the time said she brings the skills of a high quality research academic and outstanding teaching record together with her appreciation of the communication role needed by a civic intellectual in today's public policy arena. in many ways sue was a pie
nowhere. she was the first woman to be hired as a professor at the institute of public policy here at george mason university she was in the first group of women to be admitted to the cosmo's club and first woman named university professor at george mason university. in many ways women's issues were one of the central themes not only of her personal life but also of her research and scholarship. sue was founder and director of the washington institute for women in politics at mt. vernon college and she was the first to offer seminars and workshops on the practical and theoretical facets of women con semiplating public life as a career. and several of her books explored the role of women in politics and government every
one was a labor of love. she made a difference in so many lives. her memory not only lives on for her family and her writings but also through the thousands of lives she touched over her long and productive career. so marty and karen on behalf of all the students colleagues and students at mason and for that matter mt. vernon, seton hall, brooklyn college and city college thank you for sharing your life with us. she is one of those rare individuals that will continue to be apart of all of our lives
and help each of us to excel at whatever we choose to do. there couldn't be a more fitting tribute than to have students put together today's tribute to sue's work. bonnie is just one example among many of how sue influenced all of our lives. bonnie, thank you for what you have done to help us honor your mentor and your friend. will you please step forward? >> thank you so much to all of you for joining me here today to celebrate sue's life and legacy. it was my great honor to be her student. she was my dissertation chair and three years ago sue received a lifetime achievement award for
her work in and the thing that brought a tear to her eye and the thing that was most important to her was when i spoke about how meaningful having her as my professor was and she was on the tv and radio and policy out comes but she said that was most meaningful and important to her was her role as an educator and the way she touched students lives. so anyway thank you for being here to share this event. i knew she would be very proud.
this together. ed and came over to me and said aren't you marty? and i said guilty as charged. and i asked do i know you? and she said well i have been in your home twice and i was a student of sues and sue would have all of her students over at least once during the semester for a potluck dinner and she continued and she said sue changed my life. >> so i said how. >> and she said well until i took her courses i had no interest in public service but she made it seem so vital, so
challen challenging, so fulfilling that i just retired from a career at the fdic and i want to say that as sue enhanced the lives of her students, her students and faculty and administrators here at george mason enhanced her life. she loved the students with a passion. she would tell them to regard the program as an obstacle course and not to try to be creative. she said creative will come later and then when she got her ph.d. she helped them publish their dissertations and helped them get jobs and she had a
great network that she worked with really to help the students. so i want to thank all of you and all the colleagues and the students for everything that they meant to sue and for making her life as wonderful as it was. thank you. >> so it's any honor to introduce our keynote speaker for today. she comes to us from -- she is professor of government and sociology at harvard university. she too is a prolific arthur i'll give you a highlight of some of the things she has done in her long career. she is director of the network and author of the tea party and
the remaking of republican conservatism which is so relevant to today. she served as the dean of harvard's graduate school of hearts and sciences. and she is going to have this membership in all three, american academy of parts and sciences. and american politics and her work on social policy has been very impactful and of course the last half of is century so it's my great honor to welcome here my keynote speaker today. >> thank you for that
introduction. to hear the recollection decision and make them realize that they had a chance to sit down and both of us study grass roots popular anger and i know that when donald trump first announced his candidacy there was a virtual academic and media and said this is going nowhere and i immediately went into a state of anxiety from which i'm hoping to emerge in three weeks because i think like what has been reported, i understood this
might very well be going quite a long ways and with untold consequences and i also said that i have a great appreciation for the work she has done on swrender and reminds me that many years ago i was invited to participate with a cia sponsor and somebody called at the last minute to say i would need to go in the side door. and i chose to anticipate and i don't have a problem going in the side door so it didn't workout. all right. today i'm going to talk about this remarkable collection. it resinates that i look forward to hearing our distinguished panel reflect in ways i'm sure will go beyond anything. i don't need to remind everybody in the room here what the high stakes in the election as a
whole are and i'll skip over all the things that i share with general audiences about all the offices that are at stake. this would be a high stakes election if they were not front and center but the last thing on the list here that this is a election that turned out to be about a denidentity and this la month front and center women's changing role. >> i talk about the following puzzles about this election, the
rise of donald trump, i'm not going to talk at all about if he's going to win or anything like that. that's not the point. the point is how did he manage to win the republican presidential nomination. nomination of one of two major parties which ooen compared to the rise and third of 4th parties not like too many parties so this is a genuine puzzle and why was that challenge in the republican party at least temporarily perhaps for quite sometime more potent than the sanders challenge another form of populous challenge in the democratic party and then y'all can conclude that trumpism and brexit and thank you and the
convention and with that, and with the message that was delivered at the convention, you know, i mean, i see no reason to hesitate any now, it's also a critical coalition that's made all kind of gestures, at least, however reliable or unreliable they may be in the direction of republic republican from time to time commitments to reduce taxes and eliminate obama policies. now, what opens the door to this extreme partisan and ideological polarization. and that trend is asymmetric
that is tilted toward the right. between the late 60s and the 1980s the two parties sorted themselves out in the wake of the civil rights revolution that finally extended voting rights to african-americans in the south. so you could say, and i think tom -- the political science profession was very slowed up to notice that the original nair ty of the two parties sorting themselves out with a republicans moving right and the democrats moving left and the regional alliance is changing, that that shifted after the 1980s and quickly after the 1990s was the newt gingrich manifestation in the republican party. and since then, really, this is a major, political scientists used to pinpoint the ideological positioning, particularly on economic and political issues of house republicans, but this is
also true of what's been going on in the electorate with a lag that follows what happens with elites first and with advocacy and groups and social movements surrounding the two parties. and you can see that the house republicans have been leading the way, in many ways, and they keep moving further and further to the right. this, by the way, shatters the theological of the political science profession in the median and the belief that some still don't want to give up that parties will moderate and move to the center when faced with extremes. >> just to bring policy into all of this, it gives the ten reasons to re-elect dwight eisenhower, he has increased
welfare and security programs and promoting the well being of americans. he has been liberal in dealing with people, of course conservative in dealing with their money. and then number 10, this would give him written out of the republican party as a communist. he has been president for americans regardless of political affiliation, race, creed, color or economic background. so that's what it use to be -- the approximate narrative we all know of this certainly not the candidate that republicans hoped to put forward, you know what they thought would be a winnable presidential election in 2016,
bought from the very first moment in the summer of 2015, declared trump emerged with postal plurality in most polls and he never gave that up during the entire ups and downs of te preprimary and the primary process. and the let ditch efforts mounted by people like mitt romney to -- to try to stop the trump train after he emerged out on it in the primaries, really went nowhere. in fact, i think it's an interesting thing. you might want to ponder that it's mainly mormon politicians who have signed up. i think because they have a sense of population in the public sector. it's a very conservativism that's different from the free
market and evangelical that are the other major strands. i think if we're doing to look at approximate facilitating factor, the u.s. median, which i would characterize as fragmented and economically stressed, but also with a major sector that has been developed over the last decade and a half that can drive right messages through fox news and through even more through a network right ring top. it's not so much that that complex wanted donald trump. i don't think -- i think they were surprised along with everybody else, but they have helped to make him a media star and he was very skillful in pressing all the buttons and using the techniques to get media attention throughout the republican primary. there have been some impeer cal studies of this, including by the center at harvard, showing
that he just got an amazing percentage of the coverage and those who look into the content have found that either positive or horse race coverage for donald trump, the second most covered person was clinton, but clinton got mainly negative coverage into 2015 and 2016. sanders got mainly positive coverage, he got a lot, too. so really the two challengers to hillary clinton got a positive coverage. and look t the rest of them, the republican also lands, they had trouble getting anybody to pay attention to them. the final estimate is that about $2 billion in free media coverage in the republican primaries, of course, that was also a great advantage that trump was competing against so many others and the field didn't, you know, now, we all know these things. let me move to the deeper trends of in that larger context of
asymmetric polarization that i think have fuelled popular support for trump. now, i want to be clear, i actually don't think that american politics over all is driven by what voters want and feel primarily. and there's a lot of research in political science in the last decade that suggests that elected office holders and politicians don't actual do what most voters want, but it's still very important, particularly in presidential context and particularly in primary contest, to have an aroused and determined block of voters. so i want to talk about that popular support for trump where it came from and i have to say that it reminds me a lot of what vanessa williams and i heard from grass roots tea party activists when we interviewed them in arizona, virginia and
new england in 2011. many of them are the same people who are now a supporting donald trump, even though they might not use the label tea party, which is not used as much. so a number of factors, i think, have fed into popular support for trump. changing religious landscape. we need to remember that, although white evangelical property sa protestants are declining. the white evangelicals are feeling on the defensive. they're very good citizens. they vote not just in presidential contest but in midterms. i think sharply rising economic rising equalities are part of the story, i'm not going to be one to suggest that and i hope so. i don't think economic suffering is what lies behind the trump phenomenon and i'll say more
about that in a bit. the fact that we're in an era of rapid immigration, even though it's slightly slowed down, but since 1965 immigrants have been coming in in large numbers and they are people of color, often from central america and mexico. finally, i'm going to say a little bit about the imploegs party, elites open the door, created an vacuum into which -- could charge. so let me just offer a little bit of data on this, this is just in recent times, the fast-changing u.s. religious landscape, evangelical pr protestants now about a quarter of the population. look at what they're concentrate. these are christians and they are people who vote.
so they represent -- the fact that they're feeling on losing side of the cultural transformation susan holton talked about them in the 1960s makes them available for antiestablishment, particularly an antidemocratic party candidate. we all know that we're in an era of sharply rising economic and equality where the gains have gone to the top. that certainly creates a situation where people across the political spectrum are resentful of the fact that incomes have stagnated in the middle, will be defined a bit in the bottom and all the gains are going to the top. that opens the door for certain messages, even if it doesn't drive the circumstances for particular voters who take particular stance. socioeconomic characters suggests that it's more complex than just saying they're suffering in this economic era.
we know that noncollege educated white men are disproportion atly of trump. but those who support them over gop nominees are not disproportion atly effected by trade or organization. it's not a simple relationship. nate did a little bit of look during the primaries of median income. the trump fire 56. higher than those for the sanders of clinton voters. by the way, since the sanders voters are younger, they were actually headed for higher median income. she is the inequality candidate in this contest, and all of them are lower. so -- these are, i think, think
construction contract or lower level white collar, blue collar, i go to breakfast in a working class in cambridge every weekday and the waitress tells me they'll all look blue collar guys, and all the fireman and policeman she knows. she is massachusetts, the girls, she says, are numbered. the girls are sensitive. and she calls them girls. i'm not being insulted here. and then most interesting finding recently reported in the atlantic that trump supporters are less likely to have moved from their home communities and of course you only need to drive around the united states to realize that once you get beyond the metro areas into the far suburbs and into the smaller cities and into the rural areas, you see the trump sign. i think in many ways, this is people living in communities that have not yet experienced some of the changes that they're very afraid of and in many ways,
they're seeing those change -- changes displayed in ways on the television networks that they watch and that radio that they listen to. now, the other thing i want to point to is that by the time the trump candidacy emerges, the republican party is hollowed out establishment. we're reading about the establishment and there are some members here, so i don't want to be insulting. but the research that my colleagues and i have done suggested, for example, we looked at what was happening to the budgets of the republican party committees between 2002 and 2014, compared to the budget, the resources controlled by free market think tanks, the network of organizations tied to the coke brothers. even long-standing extra party groups like the nra and christian organizations. and, frankly, there was a huge
drop in resources controlled by the party itself moving out to these far right plankers. and we know that in economic policy during the obama years elected office holders in the republican party and candidates also to a man and woman adhere to ultra free market principles following to reduction of free trade. reduction is in social spending of all kind and these are actually not positions that are popular, either with most americans or with most republican-based voters. so the point that i want to make here is that by the time the trump challenge emerged to elected republicans and to party leaders, they had, in many ways, already been out flanked and pushed in directions that were quite at variance. above all they're at variance with their base on immigration and how to respond to immigration.
i think immigration is the key issue here, both the fact that it has increased and that it has shifted from being from europe, to being from latin america and more recently asia. and this is what it looks like as a% of t percent of the u.s. population over the last century. you can see that we're not yet in a period, that 12.9%, we're not yet in a period where immigrants, as a proportion of the u.s. population are what they are a tren tri ago, but it looks like it's headed to more and more people and that's what those were fearful about changing changing society and changing society see when they look at immigration. . just to help you understand, in 2010, the largest single immigrant group was from mexico, all over the country.
there's some very good research that tells us why that's true. it turns out we've been building walls for quite a while. it's not a new idea and social scientists have found that the major effect of the walls was to raise the cost arrival, not to prevent the mainly young men immigrants from coming to the united states, but to make it hard for them to go home for easter or christmas or for grandma's funeral. and so they responded in recent decades by bringing their families to the united states and by spreading out all over the country. if you visit the heart land states in the middle of the country, you're going to find large immigrant populations from central america and mexico, often holding the most difficult and low pay and least supported jobs with large numbers of children and that changes the cultural fabric, that is are easy for politicians to exploit
the anger about, if they choose to do so. this is what the large immigrants look like 100 years ago. it's mainly skand knavian. french canadian is up there. we have some pretty good research that shows that trump supporters compared to other republican identified voters and compared to other conservative identified voters, forget about the democrats here. they're much more concerned about the growing number of newcomers from other countries as a threat to u.s. values, much more likely to see islam more than other religions as something that encourages violence and believe that it's bad for the country for blacks,
latinos and asians to, perhaps, become the majority of the population. so there are some differences that set the trump voters apart on demo gra fi, older males, no college degrees. the really pronounced ones are the things this concern them that have to do with the impact of immigration, with international terrorists incidents and worries about the changing composition of american society. some of them come right out and say it. this isn't typical, but this is sort of an independent guy running for congress who temporarily put this sign up that spelled it out. the other part of this, of course, is that republican-based voters and certainly the trump voters and the tea partiers before them, but probably more than just those blocks of voters
have been very angry at their party leaders, at their e lekle representatives in congress. throughout barack obama's presidency, we know that congressional leadership of the republican party and leading republican politicians have promised things about stopping obama, rolling back his chief initiatives, preventing him from being re-elected, all of which they have been unable to deliver. and so in this poll that was taken in 2015. you can see that republican voters alike are, you know, have sold -- have a lot about the leaders of their parties, look how pronounced it is, the republican identified voters. 60%, close to 60% say that their leaders are not doing, mitch
mcconnell and paul ryan, we're looking at you, are not doing a good job, particularly on government spending ie, getting rid of obama care, illegal immigration and same sex marriage. so that opened the door for a candidate who, from the start signaled that he was angry about mexican immigration and particular and didn't make any bones about it. challenged political correctness, if i think if you listen to working class people that's one of the things you like best about trump. he says what everybody is thinking and he doesn't worry about it. and the fact that he's challenging republicans, along with media leads of the democratic party is a big plus in their eyes. now, let me more quickly just say something about the two antiparty agencies that we saw in this election, bernie sanders
when he first emerged got just diversion of the class of donald trump, but he hung around, didn't he? he was there for several months. and -- in the end, in the final weeks and months of his campaign was deliberately targeting the democratic party as the establishment as we all recall. there are some similaritities and differences that i think we need to be clear about -- these are fuelled by male -- something that -- i think it's fair to say we're in an era where white males are angry. and about a lot of different things. but these two candidates, sp someway, tapped into that male, i'm an older female democrat.
i'm a clinton person, i've been a clinton person all along. every teem i would talk to women in my age group, they would all describe the terrible attacking from sanders supporters who were young men using sexual to describe their support of hillary clinton. where did that anger come from. i don't know. but it was there. of course the difference is that sanders supporters were disproportion natalie college educated or in college and younger voters, where as the tilted male group for trump is older and tends to be without college degrees. they both had populace appeals, the core of the sanders challenge of economic populaci m populacism. it's been an appeal. they both were banished by the
media. bernie sanders was always saying he was disadvantaged. he was never subjected to attack ads either from the clinton campaign or from the trump campaign that was hoping he would be the nominee. perhaps, mistakinglmistakingly, think they were. now, the sanders' challenge presented itself as a revolution, but, you know, i studied revolutions, i know revolutions. this was not a revolution. this was the kind of challenge from the left of the democratic party that we see regularly and, you know, bill bradley, howard dean, barack obama, and only one of them has ever succeeded because it put together white liberals with african-americans, and that's barack obama. this is a routine kind of event in presidential contest in the democratic party.
it was certainly also a campaign that perfected the dino of the repeated salary donor contributions it is a way of raising resources in a different way than going to cocktail parties with very rich people. other the under hand. channeled most of its resources into rallies. . in the sanders due to very little appeal to blacks and latinos very important constituencies in democratic primaries and it has an impact on the party agenda, but democratic party institutions were able to handle this
challenge, i don't care what was in the wicki leaks, that was small potatoes. they showed that a bunch of staffers at the democratic national committee were irritated at bernie in april. so would have been those internal e-mails in its public stance the dnc maintained its compo compose sure and managed to incorporated sanders, and i would say, most of his goers into the coalition and we'll give them a voice after the election if democrats control congress, as well as the presidency. let me close my remarks that just asking the question, that i think, on everybody's mind including donald trump was brought over to britain, will
this turn out like brex it in britain. i was in just before the brexit vote that everybody in establishment said, awe, this isn't going to pass. i think they're just, once again, very differences, quite politics as before. immigrants as major part of the population that are targeted in the campaign. in britain they were not just muslims but also of italians, 13%, same as in the united states. but immigration and britain was really not tailing off. it has leveled off into the united states and more to the point, an appeal -- candidacy that appeals to nativism and tries to 1968 won order campaign faces a very different situation in the united states than it did. in britain, minorities just not
a skbror part of tmajor part of. look at the difference of 2016 in the united states. the gray there are whites without college degrees. they were 80% of the eligible electorate in richard nixon's time. now, they're, you know, less than half of the eligible electorate. whites with college degrees who have trended very heavily against trump throughout this entire campaign and more so now -- are now about more than a
third of whites. they're trying to up the turn out of noncollege -- that deepened the coalition and there's a little bit of a struggle there because hispanic americans, only half of them voted, and, of course, a lot of those who are eligible to vote and have been, shall we say, slow and reluctant to come to support hillary clinton. the big divide in this election is among whites between the college educated and the noncollege educated as well as between racial groups. and we've seen in this last phase that what may be the for donald trump is the divide
between men and women. the gender gap that's emerging is the highest gender gap we've seen, we'll see if that turns out to be true at the polls. my friend allen fitzpatrick presidency over a century and points out that hillary clinton now has all of her predecessors through margaret smith and shirley which is a combination of support and foreign policy credibility, all of which has been held against her, of course. but she hasn't and chances are despite do demonization that has occurred in this campaign and most recently commenting on her looks, i think she's probably going to assemble the final piece of the puzzle, which is a
>> that was a wonderful speech. so who am i, i'm here and asked to be the moderator of this panel and honored to do so, but why me, because i was a good friend of suits and i think that's the principle reason. if there are any other that i didn't report for a long time with cbs and nbc and for the last 30 years have been associated with it and et cetera with the kennedy school and i'm now with senior adviser, i think that's what they call me, at the center here in d.c. i want to start our discussion
in this panel by going back to something that the dean said at the very beginning what he cited would sue everett about in her book, the line, which is a i'm mad as heck and i'm not going to take it any more. the wonderful thing about sue's use of that, is that as a scholar, she was capable of the most serious scholarship in all of the data that scholars go by. but she linked it to something that people can understand who are not scholars. it was a great gift that she had and i wish that more scholars had that. so thank you all very very much. but the idea, the question is still very much with us, we're still not quite sure what happens now that this window has been opened. remember, she raised this question 20 years ago and we're thinking about it now again and
it's incumbent upon us, perhaps, finally, to come up with an answer. we're now running towards the end of an unprecedented presidential campaign, in which the republican candidate, donald trump, who by the way takes pride in pronouncing that he doesn't read books, is reaching into this voter anger concept, once again. so sue was writing about it 20 years ago and it's here, once again, so it hasn't gone away, has the ingredients of the voter-anger changed and if that's the case, in what way. i don't quite understand to this day how donald trump got to where he has got and is voter anger the reason, i doubt it. i doubt it. was it the reason that bill clinton won, was re-elected in 1996. it was a major issue, then, it
is a major reason now and i think that the panelists are -- i don't want to say uniquely because here around washington we have lots of panelists from morning until night, but they're awfully well equipped to put all of this issue of voter anger into a proper political context that i hope when they do it, they will, as well, incorporate, perhaps, some of the ideas that are presented -- that are presented in her keynote address. so down at my far right, katherine kreimer, who is director at the center for public service, professor of political science at the university of wisconsin, she's the author of the politics of resentment, rural consciousness of wisconsin and the rise of scott walker. next year, cofounder of the congressional economic
leadership institute and we'll all remember that he was the running mate in 1996 to the independent candidacy of ross perot. "new york times" columnists, he's also the professor at the columbia graduate school of journalisms. to my immediate right, tom the chair and senior fellow in government studies ed brookings and the resident scholar in the last couple of years at the institute of governmental studies at uc berkeley. so i would like to start and ask katherine to talk to us. i'm going to ask all the panelists about three or four minutes of opening comments, dealing with that central issue of voter rage. >> thank you so much. it's a real honor to be here. so thank you, again, for having me. i'll say two things, just to start off. one is that the anger among
women has certainly caught my attention in the past two weeks and i think it's very interesting that we are here to honor professor who is both an expert in women and politics and voter anger. and how interesting that those two things are coming together and sort of alluded to, the withdrawal of college educated white women from the republican party and the past month or so or since, at least, early august is quite remarkable. they've pointed this out, carey and politico has pointed this out, as well. that's one thing i'll raise. another is i'm here to represent the midwest, i think, and i can report back to you on what very kindly said was the title of my book on resentment, so since 2007, i've been spending time in primarily rural wisconsin listening to people, inviting myself into conversations in gas
stations, for the most part, and hearing what i've called resentment because i see it as this slow, burning sentiment that, in many cases has erupted. it's the sense that, you know, those of us in a small community don't get our fair share, part of it is about economics, but it's about many things. it's not feeling that we're not getting our fair share of taxpayer dollars that are taxpayer dollars are being sucked in by the cities and spent on the cities and we don't see it in return. but it's also not getting our fair share of power or decision making, people in many rural communities who might talk to, you know, all of the decisions are made elsewhere based on kind of urban values and ideas and those folks don't understand what life is like for us in small town wisconsin, small town usa. another thing i've heard, i'm saying, you know, people in the cities don't actually respect us, right? they call us red neck races.
they don't understand our way of life and our values and that resentment, i have definitely seen turn into support for donald trump. so, i'll leave that for now. >> thank you very much. >> let me note that i have -- it's on. okay. good. in during my half century career, i have had appointed policy positions with three governors, four presidents and been involved in six presidential campaigns, three republican, two democrat and one independent. in sue's book, i think, touches,
essentially, on a trajectory of change that has occurred during that past half century. she opens this book, which is really a very good book. i reread it coming out here. it's a wonderful typology and i would recommend it to everyone. but, she begins the book with a quote from john adams. and basically she says, politics is a practice. it's always been a systematic organization of hatreds. the genius of the american system created by john adams, is to take and control and channel that hatred into a democratic process, where there can be anger. where it is not revolutionary in nature. what has happened in a source of
changing anger as described by students and others who in hatred, which we're now seeing in this campaign, as being a series of disastrous policies over the past 30 or 40 years that was setting and i listed some vietnam. we relied into vietnam. the iraq war, the afghanistan war. the 8 million foreclosures of houses by the illumination of the gas steal act. the alliance of hedge funds to go from 20 trillion of death to over 240 trillion debt. literally we have hedge funds that have gambled our economy 12 times our gross domestic product. it took us -- we had 8 million homes foreclosed taken away brutally by people. we had $60 trillion of bailouts
with a federal reserve, thank goodness, to bloomberg for their request. we spent 748 billion on tarp. we've had 50,000 plant factory closings since the year 2000. we've lost one third of our manufacturing base. 5 million jobs. we -- these job losses are following when people do not have college educations. it is the source of the inequality that we're speaking about. and we have had our banks fined 248 -- top 10 banks -- fined $248 billion and no one has been held accountable tr this. we can talk how this happens and what we should do about it in our discussion. my point is, there is very good reason for people in this
country to be angry. >> thank you, very much. tom? >> all right. it's an honor to be here and an honor to speak at a forum dedicated to susan, her work profoundly influential. book he and her husband wrote about patronage is still important to me. i've learned a great deal from it. i was very surprised to hear marty's description where he said that he's paying the check -- no, that's not fair. he's a very generous person. but i just wanted to get one wisecrack. my contribution to this is that i think that what has happened is that among white voters, the two parties have flipped on
their heads and under trump, the republican party has become the party of the underdog and the democratic party has become the party of the over dog. this is really among white voters. this is a huge shift from the democratic party that i grew up, which is suppose to be the party of the working man and woman, joe six pack, the blue collar riding the subway in the morning at 6:00 a.m. now, the -- and i mean that not just economically. and i think economics does play more of a factor than veto would suggest, that the -- this is also true of the culture in general. the evangelical conservative christian now sees the world as tilted united states -- has tilted against them. they see themselves as on the losing end of the culture war
that the moral majority no longer exists as a majority. and i think they are dead right if you look at television and look at the changing attitude toward gay marriage. they've lost that war. and they feel it and they are angry and you have combined that with their adjoining to the republican party and discovering in 2008 that this party could not save them from the devastation of the 2008/2009 collapse, that basically created a revolt that did not find expression until 2015 with donald trump. and that process is now on going, how that's going to effect politics after 2016 is the real question. what's going to happen is the block of votes that's roughly 40 to 50% of the republican party,
where will they go, what will the republican party do. how can the two-party system adjust to this, really, internal within one party. those are going to be the major questions that we face going forward. i'll pass this on to the genius of politics. >> to the other tom. >> thanks for including me, i really appreciate being here and, you nailed it. i just think you got it right. all of the rich dimensions on convinced, sue would have been very pleased to listen to that argument.
the fact that some people say well, it's all economics. entire economic nationalism, but the competing claim is, wait a minute, this goes back a long time cultural roots and the identity politics has changed its meaning the identities of newly emerging minorities to the concerns and fears of a threatened declining white major which is working its way toward being a minority. matthews from fox has summerized
some of the research that's referred to, and i think it's important to keep in mind, of course economics is important. the broad context is economic, but there are there are a lot of people who came through this okay who are champions of donald trump. so it tells us that there's a tribalism at work here that transcends personal economic well being. the favorite philosopher of ej and barack obama, among others, wrote a piece for the american scholar, believe it or not, in 1937 called pawns for fashionism, our lower middle class. that's not something you might
not expect. but, in fact, he laid this out very clearly, a shrewd democrat may cal listize, partially based on racial resentments, but also national prejudice is an equally strong force. i think the coming together of the changing composition of our society has made a tremendous difference. second point i've written about it and said enough about it but the story -- throughout our
history. they've tended to be manchal. trump was the first to come forward and garner the nomination of the major party and scare the wits out of a whole lot of people in this country and around the world. with parties being so strong that lent him a base that made it possible for him to be elected. it wasn't ever right, but it was always possible and we're coming through this, but it's scarey and it reminds us that our democracy is vun able just like northern european social democracies are vuner able with
a very generous social safety net to forces of tribalism built around race and nationalism that can be quite potent. even in a country that's a nation of immigrants, is facing this head on. >> thanks, tom, very much. in listening to the four of you, and petfeta as well. and i mention that particularly because from the time that sue wrote her book in 1996 until today, we have the birth of msnbc, we have the berth of fox, we have the flowering of the radio right wing culture. i'm going to you to ask when you go to the gasoline stations and talk to your people, if there were no television 20, 30, 40
years ago and if they lived in their own world and we're not instantly connected to every argument taking place everywhere in the united states, especially the arguments upon the hill where you could listen to them for a while and have the feeling that nothing is happening, it's just words that these people would not have the feelings that they have today take the media, inject it into your analysis and try to seek someway of understanding the broader context of where they are. >> well, what i have to say may not sit very well with many people on the panelists, but i -- what i learned led me to believe that we over state the role of the media and that most of what people -- the way they
were understanding the world was not back from something they heard on fox news, for example, at times. but much of it was their own own reflections that they had created together in visiting with one another. oftentimes, there would be one person in a bunch of coffee cup of regs wulars who mentioned it every day. the thing they were most often talking about was their own personal experience and their own economic struggles and their own anxieties about becoming culture changes. yes, at times they had heard glimmers of through the news media. it's not as if their interpretation of public issues was something that they had gained in isolation from there's much more interpretation in their own specific location
going on than i think we ang knowledge. >> -- acknowledge. >> thank you. thank you. thank you. >> pat, we do have to comment on the media role. >> i will. >> i think people attempt to take the situation in context and in doing that construction, i think they're very influenced by the media. what i think has happened in our society and why we're seeing the politics that we're now seeing, is we've lost the vetting functions. at one point the political parties would have betted donald trump -- vetted donald trump out. he would have been gone. but that has gone. that function has gone. when the print media was much stronger than what it was, the print media and the three major networks and pbs vetted out what was legitimate discussion, we've had the rise of talk radio and
now cable television that is driven by rage and cash. donald trump got that much exposure on the networks for a simple reason that the cable networks were able to charge $5,000 just regular cable and when trump were on, they were able to raise that 200 and made an enormous amount of money. >> enormous amount of money on that. >> that's why i'm totally convinced that trump will form a network. i think he's going to lose the election. i hope he loses the election. trump is now building his audience for tv network, media network now.
rage is popular and that's what's -- he's capturing. >> the idea of setting up network is not the easy thing to do. he's got to get that from bangs. and banks these days are not in bed with trump. . the second thing, if you have to have a successful network, you have to have stations all over the country carrying you. and there have been so many efforts to set these things up, so he may try but he may be spending a lot of money and wasting time. >> he's going to enter the market, who will be solid viewers. >> he can get the money from russia.
and they've already got -- they've got wpn, white people's network. no, i think one that the media has lost its credibility because of polarization and the media -- the vetting media now are all seen as left wing media is going to shift in the way the "new york times" the networks all of them are seen facing all the media created the situation because he produced viewers just like he produced hits on the web when i would write a column about trump it would get three times the hits that a column on inequality would get, ten times the hits. there's money in trump, for the
media. it's a tough situation and the market is now defining the media, where use to be the media had so much money, it could define itself, it's no longer the case. >> tom go ahead. she didn't quite see that left wing bias for traditional media, if anything they were very late to coming to the guts of this campaign and the stakes of this campaign and only in the last weeks have you seen the kind of reporting on trump that might have been done last year and the kind of things that they covered on clinton were, i mean, unusual. but that isn't what i want to say. i think reality tv is -- has
been more important to trump than the media, news media. it was his basis of visibility and popularity and attention that allowed him to short circuit all of the other processes and i think that's really important and was master full in playing the media during the primary process. he knew -- he knew how to do it. but what -- what i've come to believe is that in this world of a as a asimilar -- asymmetrical polarization the media. it's their search for equivalent has, in effect, neutered their
important role in our politics and therefore they weren't present in a serious way until very late in the campaign to help us cope with the most serious threat to our democracy since the civil war. >> woe could have a wonderful discussion about the role -- we could have a wonderful discussion about the role of the media and the entire trump campaign, but i don't want to do that. i want us to go back to sue's book and all of us take a look at that book and appreciate who sue was dealing with at that time. she was writing and researching in the early part of the 1990s and the book comes out in '96. 20 years have past. were she here to do an update on that book, what are the issues that have emerged in the last 20 years that she would now spend a
couple of extra chapters brieting about or rewrite -- writing about or rewriting what it is she had done earlier. >> i'll pick up a general one that i found very striking the book, americans had it better than at any time in history. and i thought, in the 20 years since then, that's not really the case anymore, in many of the ways that thea pointed out. and one thing i did was to look up this question that gallup has asked for many, many years, at least since 1994 and probably going back earlier than i was able to find. and it's just about general satisfaction in life. and it goes like this. in general are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the united states at this time? and not long after her book came out, gallup's estimate of this put -- in 1999, it was at nearly a 20-year high.
at this point in time, in 1999, 71% of the american public said they were satisfied. now it's reversed. so that 72% say they're dissatisfied, and 27% say they're satisfied. and i would imagine she would, you know, make something of that. she pointed something out that we needed to pay attention to. and i think this election is a great reminder, that if left unaddressed, it comes to a crisis or near crisis moment. >> two things i think she would focus on. one is the '96 communications act that in effect allowed the agglomeration of the media. prior to that any individual owner could only own a set number of tv stations, a set
number of radio stations. now it is possible to homogenize that and own 1500, 2,000 stations, and be able to deliver a rush limbaugh or an alex jones and their message to the whole of the country. that's new and different, i think she would focus on that. i think the second thing she would probably focus on, because it's significant, has been citizens united, and the whole question of money. perot ran the '96 campaign on $135 million. you can't do that in pennsylvania today. and we wind up with a situation today where a massive amount of that money is dark money. we do not know where it comes from. we do not know the agendas of the people behind it. those two things, the media agglomeration, and this massive flow of money, i understand the 6 or $8 billion in this campaign, i think those would be the two things.
>> excellent. thank you very much. tom edsall. >> on the second point, i disagree. trump ran a campaign that was actually low budget, relatively speaking. he's gotten a huge amount of free media, like $2 billion, as i think thea shows. but he has raised and spent much less than hillary, and especially in a primary. beyond that, even his advertising in every given state. i think this election, if anything, shows that citizens united has not had the overwhelming consequence that we thought it would have. i think the other things that sue would note would be, one, in 1999, at the high point of when everyone thought everything was hunky-dory, that was the high point in the economy. the '90s were golden years in this country, and they were golden years for everybody across the board.
low income, high income, middle income. everybody rose, all boats rose. since then, we've had a very slow growth period. we've had rising inequality with very little growth at the middle and down below, if not no growth. that's a big difference. if you're going to get pessimistic, there are real grounds to be pessimistic for the majority of the electorate. there are a lot of other points, but i'll leave it there. >> i think sue had the categories all there. it's the context of each has changed. the economy, she had seen the stagnation of wages, but that then continued, and we saw increasing economic inequality. and then we had the worst global financial crisis and recession since the great depression. so this unleashed, you know, a lot of the other forces and
factors that she herself addressed. and i think she would have, after viewing this, sort of looked at the two parties, not together but separately, and try to see what's happening, with all the racial minorities clustering in one party and the other party being predominantly the right party, that's the kinds of thing that has a way of really exacerbating divisions that we managed to dampen at times in our history. >> and the issue that comes right out of that is, of course, the presidency of barack obama. so i would like to raise this question. if we are discussing the heart and soul of voter anger, to what extent, i don't want to sort of prejudice my question, to what
extent do you believe that the presence of the first black president in the white house in the last eight years has led to the depth of anger? or is that irrelevant to the depth of anger? >> it's totally relevant. and i was going to raise my hand and ask if i could add in a second thing that i think is so important to the context in the past 20 years. and it is the presidency of barack obama. and also our heightened attention to racism in this country. i think the events of the pass few years have been -- i mean, i believe it's largely because of cellphones, and that white america has seen in an inescapable fashion the kind of violence that's going on in our country. i think all of us are trying to make sense of the many bewildering things going on in this world.
and i think when people are given a story and targets of blame, it rallies emotion, including anger, in a very kind of effective way. and i think the manner in which anxiety about the changing cultural composition of our country has been rallied or targeted toward barack obama, is a very big part of the story. he has become a target for a lot of the angst and emotion about the fact that we are no longer a white country. >> anyone want to pick that up? pat? >> i think that what we have seen is a code word for racism in the attacks on barack obama. and the whole question about birtherism. i find it astounding that something like 60% of republican voters believe that this president was not born in the united states, which means they believe he has not a legitimate office holder to the position. at the same time, i think what
we're also seeing here is misogyny on a massive scale in the reactions to hillary clinton. and again, it is deep seated misogyny. this is deep seated racism. and we're in the process of moving our way across that. i would like to say to tom, on the question of citizens united, it is true, i agree with him on trump, he has been able to do earned media magnificently well. but the influence of that money has felt itself in this campaign downticket, inside the republican party. the very fact that an mcconnell and that a ryan and other republican leaders are intimidated to not say anything lest they lose their funders has a major role. i mean, what we should have seen is the republican establishment responding forcefully to many of the statements and attitudes that trump has put out. it's that fear of the dark money
that holds them away. >> would one of the toms like to comment on the role of barack obama in explaining the depth of the voter rage? >> i mean, you just think the fact that he is black and you have the enactment of obamacare, which is a redistributional program, shifting benefits and taxes downward to a population that is disproportionately minority, contributed to this idea. the two echo each other. he becomes the embodiment of liberalism and he is black. the two conflate. so you then get a higher level of what pollsters call racial affect. >> i agree with that. but obama's more than that.
i think he's also the epitome of a meritocracy, someone who goes to good schools and learns a lot and speaks, you know, in very refined ways, not like hillbillies speak. >> a professor. >> a professor. this is the -- >> only for a brief time. >> the race is an important part, but it by no means limits the sense of cultural alienation. these are the kind of people that are taking over our country. racism is a part of it. but it's also gender feeling. obama doesn't act like strong males, assertive males are supposed to in many ways, you know? and that has i think opened an avenue for trump. >> another question that thea raised in her presentation that has to do with immigration. and the number of people who are coming into this country, now, number one, a very high number,
but number two, of them, many of them are not white. so that adds to the perception and the problem. and i'm wondering if you put those two together, the immigration itself, without any linkage, could be a very significant reason for the rage that does exist among the white male, not college educated supporter of donald trump. >> yes. yes. i think immigration is a great example of the way in which cultural anxiety and economic
anxiety are intertwined, because so often the conversation about immigration is about certain people taking our jobs or tree trade being a bad economic idea. i think the fact that -- that great map that thea showed, so many states, the largest immigrant population coming from mexico, there again, it's a very kind of clear, blatant target for people to tap into. so i absolutely agree. >> tom? >> it's probably important to remember that even when the immigrants were primarily white, once they moved to southern european, and when they involved jews, things got pretty, pretty nasty in our politics back at the early part of the last century. but you do think, and that's the point thea was making, that the period of rapid immigration and
its changing composition has returned us to a -- given us a problem. and now, in many ways, our party system isn't able to manage it as well as it has before, for various reasons. and i think that contributes to it. one last thing, maybe one of the scariest things about what's going on. there are people who are angry, and then there are people just filled with hate and have been for decades on end, that had hate groups and neo-nazi groups and white supremacists. what's stunning is the extent to which, in their conversations on twitter and on their websites,
and now we have good investigative reporting going on following these social media channels and everything, and the extent to which the -- you know, the alt-right, as we call it now, has come to feel they've been brought into the mainstream of american politics by the trump campaign. it's really scary. so a lot of this stuff has been around before. but this time it broke through from the fringes to the mainstream. >> and the mainstream, of course, is the fact that donald trump represents one of the two major parties in this country. just to share something with you all, it's kind of interesting, i think, last week trump did a speech down in florida which was different from most of his other speeches in the way in which he delivered it. it wasn't a teleprompter, but he
recalls it in full sentences, whole paragraphs, long words, very complicated thoughts. and i was saying to myself, this is not donald trump. so who was it? on a hunch, i read up on some of the editorials that breitbart has been publishing over the last six months. much to my astonishment, the phraseology was exact. the long phrases were simply pulled out of editorials that had appeared on breitbart. so here we have now a major candidate who is expressing something that is not within the normal range of our politics, but has broken out of the normal range. at least that's my sense of it. and i wonder if you share that, you panelists share that view. tom?
>> i'm a little less pessimistic than you on this. i think it's possible that if you bring alt-right into the mainstream, they're going to be the ones who have to compromise. they're going to have to start dealing with a larger political reality. when they were in isolation off in mountain cabins where they're keeping their, you know, antinuclear devices all wound up, they are totally separate, and they're totally isolated from society. if they have to get engaged, they're going to have to learn a little bit about what the real world is or else they're going to just get pushed out again. >> if that was the case, tom, we have found its political expression in trump becoming more a movement toward the center. and he seems to be, in the last couple of weeks, hunkering down now and exaggerating the relationship with the breitbart people rather than putting
distance between himself and then. >> i'm talking about the alt-right in terms of storm front and these kind of places. >> montana militia. >> the montana militia. those people have separated themselves, insofar as the society in general, they become part of it, i think it's possible. i'm probably candy-eyed in this point of view, but they will possibly become a little more reasonable. >> you guys on "the new york times" are so sensible. [ laughter ] that's wonderful. you want to say something. >> i do. i'm sort of puzzling through
this. i'm not sure if i have this right. but i don't think -- i don't think that people -- i think we are setting ourselves up for a bit of a disaster if we discount these people as so far from the mainstream. so for example -- may i read you a quote from a conversation i heard not that long ago among a group of trump supporters. this is a man who is just a regular member of his community, who gets together with a group of his pals every morning in a service station. and i happened upon -- i was visiting them early one morning a few months ago. and he seems like a very reasonable person to me. but this is what he said. when i was asking about their support for trump, he said, "it's time for the reckoning. these politicians, they're going to lose their jobs because they haven't represented us, and they've put us in debt. do you even hear from the democrats so far how to clear
the debt? all you hear is free education, and that can never happen." he goes on and on. he says, "i think if a guy like that," trump, "got in there, he would probably start to straighten things out so we start paying this debt back some day. everybody in their 70s and 80s and 90s are fine and dandy, but everybody that's behind us," meaning younger people, "brace up, because we're going to head into a third world country. we're heading there." this is a pretty regular guy telling me the armageddon is coming. my point is the alt-right is not just among recluses but relatively mainstream people. >> the conspiracies have gone mainstream. if birtherism can, as you said, continue to attract that percentage, there's a lot of people that believe this stuff. and that's -- you know, that's what's scary. what's scary is the rejection of evidence and facts and science. in fact, people -- you were
saying this earlier -- follow conversations like this, they'll listen to ours on c-span, and feel, yeah, it's the same old people, you know, ignoring, you know -- throwing this stuff at us and they don't -- you know, we know what's going on, they don't know what they're talking about. and we can't ever get in a situation where we can actually sit down and talk it out. because they won't do it in congress, because there's not an inclination on the part of republicans to engage in that kind of effort now. >> pat? >> there's some demonization of the right in this situation. if these people are inclined to see birtherism, there must be something underlying that. they're not ignorant, dumb people. there must be something about liberalism and the democratic party that lends itself among some people to producing this kind of idea, that the head of the democratic party, barack
obama, is a sort of alien non-american to them. i'm not justifying that point of view. but there must be something going on, unless you're going to dismiss this, say, 30% of the population, as a bunch of mentally ill people. >> how would you describe them, tom? >> i'm not saying that, tom. >> but unless you start talking about what is it that is prompting them -- >> well, what is it? >> i think that there is a lot of deep resentment at the democratic party having what ronald reagan tapped into years ago, when he said, i didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me. you see this throughout white working class areas. you see this anger at the left and liberalism. you see it in hillary clinton's e-mails, the e-mails where she tells goldman sachs one thing and says another thing when she's debating with bernie sanders. she says things about dodd/frank. >> it really isn't. >> it is.
but that's what the party is, in many respects. and it's going to be perceived that way. people are going to see the party in ways that are not going to be nice and sometimes they're going to be kind of off the wall. but there are -- people better do some respecting. >> pat, you want to come in. >> i agree with tom. >> hold that microphone near your mouth. >> i agree with tom on this whole country, that there's going to be a moderating force on the right.
it's going to be around the dynamism that is going to occurring after this election. i think there is going to be a three-party civil war inside the republican party. there's going to be the alt-right with trump. that's going to be the libertarians with the koch brothers. and there's going to be the traditional white shoe republicans, john kasich, et cetera. and it's going to be very brutal. they're going to have to find compromise with each other. the only thing that they're going to find compromise on is they all hate hillary clinton and the clinton administration. and i think that they will go into excess. so i think the dynamics here is going to have a leveling effect on the right. they are going to i think make it possible because she's a very skilled politician, very skilled. look at the comments of the senators, republican and democrat, when she was a senator. i think it's going to create a dynamic where she will be able to do deals and compromises and
have accomplishment and set herself up for a nice rerun in 2020. >> we have ten minutes left. i'm delighted that you have jumped ahead to my final question, because i'm very interested in what you all feel, given the emphasis on the background and the reasons for the voter rage. what is going to happen on november 9th? does the voter rage then just stop? does it get more intensified? what are the reasons, what happens at that point? and with that easy question, catherine, give us the answer. or try. >> well, i'm worried about it. i guess i'll answer with a question. and the question in my mind is, just how much establishment pop technicians, elites, from both the democratic party and the republican party, come out in the next few weeks talking about how this is not a rigged election and sort of setting us up for those claims when mr. trump, assuming he does not win, i think it would just be extremely dangerous in terms of fomenting even further anger and very disruptive anger to claim that it was somehow a fraudulent election. i have been very happy to see so many people coming out in the past few days saying, it's a legit election and we'll abide by the results. >> i'm going to jump you, pat, and go to tom. tom one, i'll say. and ask you that same thing, tom. november 9th, what is it that in your judgment is going to happen at that point, in terms of voter rage, in terms of where the politics may go? >> if hillary clinton is going to be able to accomplish something, i think she's going to have to have both branches of congress.
and i don't think she's going to. odds are that the house will stay republican and the odds are that if anything, the republicans who remain will be more conservative on average than the ones who were there. the middle of the road is always what gets hurt in elections. i foresee a -- frankly, another four years of gridlock, and very unpleasant, and people getting angrier and angrier at inaction. i think the prospects in 2018 in the senate are not good for the democrats. and even if they take back the senate in 2018, they could lose it. so that the idea of a government that can coherently do something is going to be problematic. if they get the senate, i think there's going to be a lot of pressure to change the rules on filibusters on supreme court nominations in addition to federal appellate courts,
because it looks like the republicans are going to take a very hard line even on supreme court nominations. i think that might be someplace -- and there might even be changes in the filibuster rules more generally speaking. >> tom mann, before you go, let me interject a question. >> okay. >> assuming for a moment that hillary clinton wins, is there anything she can do to head off the future that edsall has just described? >> yes, by following edsall's advice and putting everything she can into electing a democratic house as well as a senate, i mean, tom is absolutely right on this. and the notion that sort of an individual, because she has experience in a different context in the senate on second or third level issues, having had some success working with republicans, can't match up with
the structural forces that are at work here. and so all this talk about, oh, it's so awful, well, hillary needs to spend her last week laying out a vision so she has a mandate. hello? there are no mandates. there are unified governments and divided party governments. and she needs troops. and she needs control. and then she needs to do and make clear that while the democratic party is changing, it's more educated, there are more higher income people, it's still, one, represents the lowest income whites as well as virtually all of the minorities, and that the prime policies being pursued by the other side
are -- i mean, paul ryan is attractive in many respects, but he's still singing the ayn rand hymnal. it's stunning how much the program of the national republican party is unresponsive to the concerns. it's so cynical, the opposition to government, the demonization of other people, the withholding legitimacy from the normal democratic routines. . . . . . there was an article two or three days ago about people coming from el salvador and other south american countries. my opinion was this should be a way to solve it. or resolve it.
so it's not lost message from trump. he's talking about something many people care about. that's not on the defense of trump. in regard of the kind of rhetoric, i think this is everybody's job. to do the fact check, and to write. write to the editors, write about these are not facts. for example, one of the things that trump keeps throwing out that illegal immigrants are causing more crime. while statistics are proving they're causing less crime. because most of them are worried about committing crime and being deported.
so they really don't commit such crime. but they always highlight when an illegal alien killed -- that student in san francisco. it was a story on fox news for five days. that illegal alien, the city of san francisco allowing illegal aliens in the city. which i think it's wrong, but anyways, but focusing on that crime as if americans don't commit crime is wrong. but going back to the subject that during the debate and even in the discussion that lots of stuff that comes out that's inaccurate, i think it's everybody's job, number one, people who have a letter to the editor forms that people can go to the website and fill out and have a list of addresses, or where to send it to e-mail to u.s. "today," so that is the job
of everyone here in the room, including abc. >> i heard a correlation by the president of naacp, that i'm going to use. his formulation is protest polls policy. we need to pay similar attention to the policy that comes after the election and engage and ensure that we are engaing with our elected officials. because we foet for someone, and then we disappear, and then we come back in the next two or four years to have our voice heard again. we really do need to engage on our city council, our legislators, as well as within our congress to make sure that the policies we care about are the ones that they're talking about, and voting on.
>> okay. we're going to take two quick questions back-to-back. and then we're going to wrap it up. we have one there. and this gentleman over here has been patiently waiting. >> thank you. i come from tucson, southern arizona. we are close to mexico than other states. this month bodies were discovered. and this is a very mild month. one of the messages that we do with election protection is to ask people to verify their voter registration. you don't have to wait until you show up at the polls to find out you're no longer on the rolls rose. if you've registered, you can look it up to verify your voter registration.
because often now we as individuals have to do some groundwork, some legwork before the election to make sure that this our registration is in order. we know what documentation we need to vote. we know where we need to go to vote. so that we don't encounter these unexpected problems on election day. it is a problem that is being addressed by the state board and civil rights groups. but the voters also need to take the extra step to make sure all is well before we show up at the polls, to know about these problems ahead of time.
we talk about the supreme court case where the court ruled it unconstitutional to try civilians in military courts while civilian courts are operating. >> the trial was part of this debate. and therefore the military trials were justified. and it worked. and at 8:00, chad heat on the origins of the gay rights movement. the whole other array of social and cultural movements from this period are developing.
the anti-war movement, the civil rights and black power movement. women's liberation movement. they're taking the best aspects of those and building upon them. >> then sunday evening at 6:00, on american artifacts, we take a tour of the woodrow wilson house in washington, d.c. with, the executive director, robert enholm where the 28th president retired in 1921 and died three years later. >> he responded to that crisis by sending food aid to armenia. the armenian people were very grateful and a group of armenian women touring the united states raising money for armenian charts were here just after we declared war and presented this painting for president wilson. >> and at 8:00 -- ♪ >> neil oxman, talks about the history of presidential campaign
ads, beginning with dwight eisenhower's tv jingles through the 2016 presidential campaign. for our complete american history tv schedule, go to c-span.org. >> will america have its first important born first lady or will we have a former president as first gentleman? learn more about the influence of america's presidential spouses from c-span's first ladies now available in paper back, first ladies gets readers a look into the personal lives and impact of every first lady in american history. first ladies is a companion to c-span's well regard bide og if i series. and features interviews with the leading first ladies historians. each chapter also offers brief biographies of 45 presidential spouses and photos from their lives. first ladies, in paper back, published by public affairs is now available at your favorite
book seller and also as an e-book. >> the u.s. chamber of commerce recently held its fifth health care summit in washington. we'll hear about innovations in medicine, improving hedge outcomes and reducing costs. >> good morning. i've got wide open spaces up here. i'm glad to see very few down there. welcome. good morning. thank you for joining us here at the u.s. chamber of commerce for our fifth annual health care summit. part of the chamber's foundation future state series. my name is katie mahoney. i'm the executive director of health policy at the chamber. this year our theme is health forward.
a very appropriate title as we look towards the coming year and new opportunities to drive positive change in the health care system. we have a wealth of experts here today who will talk about everything from personalized medicine to how employers are investing in population health to what the next five years of delivery system reform may look like. before we dive into the rest of the program, we would like to thank novant health for sponsoring as our gateway host this year and thank bayer for serving as a co-host. we're also thrilled to have blue cross blue shield and fti consulting as partner level sponsors. we appreciate their support and yours. we're so lucky to have you all here today. it seems like just yesterday we were working on the first annual health care summit, and now here we are five years later. looking back, we focused on improving transparency and rewarding innovations, advancing delivery system reform. and optimizing the next generation of health care. and this year it's on our app. today's event builds on the summit's history of highlighting
private sector innovation. while the theme is similar, we're focusing a bit more today on technology and data and their role in targeting personalized treatments through custom analytics and digital health and assessing the needs of different communities and populations in order to best treat conditions and manage health. speaking of how far we've come, please don't forget to download that app on your phones. just search for health forward in your app store. within the app, you'll find today's agenda and speaker bios and a lot of great content from our speakers. given the focus of this morning's event, we're honored to have bob pearson, president of w20 with insights how to accelerate innovation. bob has had an esteemed career in communications technology and communications and health and is globally recognized as a marketing visionary who's driving pragmatic disruption. at the chamber we take pride and applaud pragmatic disruption and could not be more pleased to welcome you as our first speak tore the stage.
bob? ♪ >> a pleasure to be here. i come out of the pharmaceutical industry. originally for novartis, in the technology industry at dell. and today we work with over 100 health care companies, many tech companies and a majority of the venture capital firms. i thought, let's consolidate the thinking of what we're learning from all these folks into a 20-minute talk and see how we do here. so, three things are driving innovation in our business like never before.
and what we're seeing is this convergence of technology in health care that we're all aware of, but i think the future is unbelievably bright for this country. with big data, everyone knows about big data, but what's really happening is we move from having an app here, a tool here and a platform here to starting to think like an information genome. how do we capture the information through multiple systems to actually use it for the benefit of transforming health? artificial intelligence, machine learning and neural networks had tremendous potential. i'll show you one example in a little bit, but the ability to allow software to understand what is happening in these bodies that we have is going to lead to breakthroughs that we can't even imagine today. and with science, we're well into the human genome, right? but there's something that's been going on for a while. and i think all the time about how science evolves, and you have to go back and realize that patience actually matters. and what you think of the web or the human genome project or artificial intelligence, they have been around for a very long time, but what happens is eventually enough areas mature that they collide, and when they
collide, amazing stuff can happen. so let's just actually take a look and see what is happening and where are we today in terms of innovation? so, one example is this. what if we could actually combine a semiconductor technology and pharmaceutical technology? what would that do? there's a ceo of a company i met a few years ago, explaining what he was doing here. i thought this is amazing. this is something to do broadly. and that is, proteus digital health. they have a small biodegradable chip that you take with your medicine and you can get through a patch, pharmokinetics of the drug. see the heart rate, pulse, where the drug was manufactured, everything. just a very beginning of what we can do putting bio digestible sensors into our body. but the thing that's immediate
is if you're caring for a loved one 3,000 miles away, we can see if they took their medicine. we can say, mom, you need to they can that medicine right now. i saw you didn't take it at 10:00. what if we could figure out how to edit disease? we thought about this for years. is there a way to identify genes and we have all this knowledge on the genome, what do we do with it? actually now we have that ability right in front of us. that's crispr. cass 9. what we're able to do now is have a system where scientifically we can find the places we need to snip, edit and actually improve the function of a gene. that just completely changed the game in looking at treatments, diagnostics, medicine in general.
bayer and crispr therapeutics have gotten together. this is an example of where what we need is not bio tech on its own. we need pharma and bio tech and health systems, pioneering together earlier. innovation is so fast that we cannot go in a linear path like we have for many years. it just will not work. it requires a heck of a lot more teamwork. and the bayer crispr-jv is a great example of this happening. what new medical disciplines result? this is something that there's many things to think of. i was actually speaking at the phoenix medical device meeting to about 75 ceos and so they were featuring new technologies. and one of the ones that really hit me was bio electronics medicine. it's a totally new field emerging because of technology and health. and chad bowden at the feinstein institute showed that with an implant in the brain and having the brain waves measured and basically using a.i. to look at
how to scale the knowledge coming out of brain, you're able to allow the person who's paralyzed, person's paralyzed, to think and start to move their hand for the first time. and then over time, actually pick up a key. and this is all by understanding the brain waves, understanding what they're telling us, and able to make that motion go right through to have a person do a motion. showed video after video of this. it's enough to bring tears to your eyes to see that if we could apply technology and health in different ways, what is it we can't do? right? we can change gene function. we can change how a paralyzed person sees their life. there's a lot that we can do if we partner together more effectively. now, next thing. i don't know why i'm pointing in the wrong direction here.
what's the promise of virtual reality in health? this is an area of course a lot of hype with many other things. we think of it for our kids and what can we do there. that's great because we'll innovate faster by allowing the gamers of the world to play with virtual reality and augmented reality. but what we're already starting to see is that you can train physicians anywhere in the world so we can up the level of medical care worldwide through training of virtual reality. that is huge for the world. burn victims. burn victims, already showing that if you actually allow people to think of different things, like they have scenarios where they're thinking of being in the antarctic and, you know, going through cooler areas, their pain actually goes down. it really does work. and so, you can start to see how do you help people deal with their pain? there's no new ways of post-traumatic stress syndrome. things that are part body and part mind are starting to be able to where we can make an impact of virtual reality and augmented reality. i look at the line here. it's a matter of our applied imagination. the issue is not is the technology available? is issue is our readiness to think through what's possible,
test it and figure out where we can go from there. the immune system. the immune system is something that's -- i've been in the industry 30-plus years and talking about the immune system forever. when antibodies first came out, they were cute. no one really knew if they would take off, and here we are today. what we're seeing today are things like this with the anti-pd-1 immunotherapy and blocking the pathways to do the job. the system is ready to do the job. we have needed science to step in to be able to show how to actually allow it to do its job. and this is leading to a whole new generation of medicines but more importantly, it should lead to our -- our lack of need for toxic therapies so early in the treatment of a cancer patient. right? so there's benefits way beyond even the initial science. now, how can technology and machines improve what humans do? let's look at an example here. intuitive surgical.
unbelievable company. robotic assisted minimally invasive surgery. so you're not doing robotic surgery. what you are doing is helping surgeons do a better job through robotics. what that means is if a surgeon is guiding surgery, if they're doing it themselves, your wrist can only bend so far, but if you're in there with robotic assisted surgery, you can bend in an unlimited way. there's all kinds of things to do surgically with this that you couldn't do before. and that's the beginning of what we'll see there. what new minds are tackling health issues? this is something for me that's very exciting, and i had the opportunity to talk to jeff
huber who's at grail. and jeff is the guy who was -- well, many people who are involved in this, but he was involved in building google's ad platform, building google maps and what they needed to get built, whatever that would be, jeff would end up on the project and it would go pretty well. right? so jeff's wife died of cancer. and he said, this -- i'm out. i'm going to figure this out. so he left google. he partnered with alumina. they formed grail. a couple notable people got behind this and what he's looking at is how do you build essentially search for our body? you can see signs at the earliest stage and detect cancer way before you would ever see it today in a standardized test. he wants to completely revolutionize diagnostics. now, will he succeed? i personally believe he will
from knowing a little bit about jeff and the resources he has. and the more important thing is these are doable scenarios to think we could be building the equivalent of google inside ourselves to figure out what's going on. now, what if all or most of the health data could be integrated? many of us are involved in this every day and, my goodness, it's all over the place. right? so what we're doing at the same time that science is moving very fast. technology is allowing us to dream in ways we never could. we're still struggling with basic stuff. can we get data to talk to each other and systems to work together? we need to move a lot faster and a lot more intelligently to figure out how to harness power. i look at it like a data immune system. if we put this stuff together, the insights we have on how to change behavior will change
exponentially. we have a ways to go here. so, if we look overall, personalization is being redefined. our body is an untapped data source. i think of it like the amount of data coming out of all of us is unbelievable. can we tap into it? we have the technology to allow us to innovate. and when you think of any disease or disorder being fair game, we only have to look at personalization to see how much rare diseases taken off. i remember when rare diseases were something that no one paid any attention to. because you couldn't make any money. now with enough incentives, we're revolutionizing how we look at rare diseases. and we'll do the same thing with
many other subtopics of health as we go. so when i bring it back to the chamber of commerce, conscious of the stage i'm on, this is an unprecedented opportunity for this country. with silicon valley and the medicine chest here, if we combine those two we'll lead the way in the world for the next couple of decades. there is nowhere else on earth that has the kind of intelligence we have in our great 50 states. it's a question of how we decide to use it. when i look at technology, here's some things that we know are true, as i end this talk. one is, technology acceleration as we see it today, it's actually going to increase. not going to decrease. it will increase. so we're going to be bombarded with all these different opportunities that we have. we also know that organizations will struggle with this mightily. how do i actually change? are we changing fast enough? what do we do? we'll always be behind the curve
and that's normal, but we have to acknowledge it and realize that really the onus is on us to innovate faster. and then if we go to the last one here, this is, you know, just being honest. political change is the slowest. regulations are the slowest. and so, we have to think through how do we do this? i get back to, what do innovators really want? if i'm not here and talking to venture capitalists and start-up ceos and ceos of life science companies, what do they really want? i break it down into this. they want clarity of rules. they're not necessarily saying i want all the rules that i want for my company. they're saying please just give me clarity. so i understand the world i'm playing in. they want clarity of payment. don't hit me later on and tell me that i can't get reimbursed. i can't get reimbursed. i can't make models on that. give me more direction on how to get a return on investment. ability to learn together. i've seen in the fda some fantastic innovation that has occurred in terms of trying to think through pharma
co-vigilance and the future of social media. we need the fda and the government overall to learn with industry. right? so we need a better job of saying, if we're -- can we all not just try to sell anything and just teach each other to go up to speed at the same pace? that will help us with regulations and in terms of everything we need to do. what do we do in terms of what we do with the data. what's technology do? if you have the ability to search inside your body, what do you do with that data? so if we're learning together, it's not going to be that hard to do. if we're not learning together, we are going to hit the wall after wall after wall. and the problem with that as you know is that patients are out there, they're counting on us to succeed. they believe we're all smart enough to do this. and so, really, it stops with us. can we actually do it? can we take advantage of the unprecedented opportunity to innovate? i think i have a few more minutes here. if anyone has any questions, love to take them. early in the day? any questions at all? yes? [ inaudible question ] >> what is the best way for employees -- >> employers to provide -- oh, thank you.
what is the best way for businesses that provide benefits to their employees to help advance these innovations? because these are important to us from a cost management perspective and health of our workforce. >> yes. this gets into what we find when we look -- we work outside of health care and when you work with big consumer package goods companies and things like that. what they're learning is if you say, this is what i know people to do and tell them what to do and then measure if they do it, that's old school. that doesn't work. so what you have to do is say, let's go out into the world and say the people that we're trying to reach, this group of employees, what do they do online? where do they go? what content do they care about? what keywords do they use?
what language do they use? what channels do they go to? who do they respect? from there, how do i start to talk like that inside my company? do i bring in some of these experts they revere in nutrition in to speak at our company? do i bring some of the content they care about into our company? if we bring the world into them, we're speaking to them like we are now and we're having more of a conversation. but companies are as you know very poor at that and they say, well, these are incentives, get people to do this thing. therefore we'll do this and jam it out. they didn't do it. how come?
program didn't work and it's a never-ending cycle. so what we try to do is teach people how to think of it differently. get outside of the normal box. yep? >> thank you for being here this morning. i'm paul kelly with the federal group, and these are some really interesting and exciting innovations that you were talking about. but there's a great concern about privacy that's come up in recent years, of course. >> yep. >> i'd be interested in your thoughts on what these companies are doing related to privacy and just that environment generally. >> yes. i think, you know, you're absolutely correct about that with personally identifiable information and where you store information and all of that. that candid answer is i think there needs to be a lot more work done in terms of how do we make sure we have the right privacy standards. they're top line and fairly basic and companies intuitively do the right thing. so they regulate themselves to figure out what they should do.
the most progressive privacy we see is in europe and if we're over there, i mean, you have to be exceptionally clear of how you use data and what form and all of that. i think we have some work to do here in terms of what we do with people's data, but in my view, it's not a hard problem to solve. this is about having rules as opposed to a technology issue. the technology part is easy. you can take data, store it anywhere, protect it at the whatever level you want. that's not the problem. the problem is do we allow people to use this data for any other purpose? is it clear what purpose it's for? and are we aligned with the person who we got the data from? right? that's where things break down. i think there was another -- either that or you're flexing your hand. >> so where do you see innovation working to help employers, particularly large employers, connect locally with community-based programs? >> yes. so in this day and age, you can see -- let's say you have 100,000 people that you're working with. you can actually see what they're doing online. you can see what they care about. more importantly, you can actually see exactly what providers are doing online. so you can see what cardiologists or oncologists or general practitioners are doing, who they respect, who they are listening to for advice, how your employees and providers are talking to each other. so when you actually look at the actual world of what's happening, you can start to say, hmm, how do we shape that? again, because too much of what we say is inside our company we'll share information rather than say, okay, who are the physicians in the network that we're in? what are they doing?
how do we actually have a better relationship with them? that's pretty easy to do. doctors are online. they have an mpi number. you can see exactly what they do. and i think of like -- i'll give you one example. like probably can say this. a big clinic that -- very famous clinic you all know actually looked at what their providers do versus what they think they're doing, and it's not the same thing. so we have to also start with how do we actually impact the people who are prescribing medicine or implanting devices or doing things to make sure that the whole ecosystem is actually working together as opposed to just shaping the views of patients? and we see this over and over and over again that that's a big issue. >> can you address the issues of hipaa and political resistance to privacy? because i think those will both have to be looked at. >> yeah. i don't know that i can solve that for you in 30 seconds, but i do have an opinion on it which is that we have to stop -- i
wouldn't say politicize things but stop talking emotionally and talk factually about what we can do. because if we actually look at what we can do in terms of guidelines and storage of data it is not that hard. it is -- we get worked up with, you know, is this something going to be misused? all right? so i don't know if that is addressing at all what you said. okay. that's a good way to end. yeah. yeah. okay. you just raised one of the hardest things out there on the planet practically.
♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> hi, i'm joanne kennan, the executive editor for health care at politico. we have three people here, all physicians, right? who are going to talk to us about population health. i'm going to introduce them, tell them -- have them say what they do, and then spend a couple of minutes defining population health because it's one of those eye in the beholder kind of things. we don't have common definitions. so let's start with dr.
catherine baase. correct? >> yes. >> she is the global director of health services at the dow chemical company, and she is in charge of keeping everybody there healthy, right? >> that's true. so in that role, i'm responsible for our occupational health health promotion, epidemiology research, health policy, health benefits so the landscape of health with really the mission to accomplish better health for our people because that's related to all of our other corporate priorities. and when i say our people, i mean dow people broadly. employees and families and retirees and to get better value for the dollars we spend. >> okay.
then we have dr. steve peskin executive medical director for population health at horizon blue cross blue shield of new jersey. >> i bet know what population health is, right? good morning. thanks to the chamber for organizing this. i'm general internalist by clinical training and lead our efforts in population health which we'll get into much more more at blue cross, blue shield more deeply. we're the largest health insurer in the state of new jersey and i jokingly or seriously say the ford fusion american car is my office and spend time out in the ecosystems from doctors up to the largest health systems in the state on a whole variety of efforts around consumer engagement, physician behavior change and efficiency and quality of health care. >> and we have got dr. george isham who's the chief health officer and plan medical director at health partners in minnesota. right? >> right. >> okay. and your role here?
>> so i have been since -- for some time, the medical health officer and plan medical director of financing system in minneapolis/st. paul in minnesota. i also co-chair the roundtable on population health improvement at the national academy, and that's another perspective i bring to the conversation on population health. >> okay. and i noticed when i was reading about your bios, all of you have been involved very much on the metrics of health care defining quality and figures out how to measure it and able to speak -- your experience is both very granule how do we know if we're doing the right things and what are the goals trying to set and do they mean something and a larger topic of population health. and not everybody here is in health care full time. i think when you come to the term population health, people often confuse it with public health and the traditional -- fighting tb, or whatever the modern equivalent is. isn't the same thing and yet we don't have a common definition. so i think all of you have an internal population you're responsible for or employees, members of your health plan. but all of you are engaged in a larger sense of coming to terms
with what is the health of population, who do we become healthier? why don't you each use your working definition? start at that end, george. >> well, you know, the common usage talking about sub populations such as employee groups or groups that are cared for by a health plan or patient clinic population, those with diabetes and so forth. and the formal definition is the health outcomes of a group of individuals including the distribution of such outcomes within a group. and those are primarily length of life, its quality and, as i said, the distribution within the group. total population health sort of a little addition to that would be geographic population, like the health of the people in city of washington, d.c., for example. >> all right. and for horizon, what is your -- >> yeah. it is a multifaceted, right? so dr. isham's definition certainly resonates with me. when we think about it, we think
about all the four of us are individuals so they -- all the end of ones, each of us individually and then how we map to certain areas so it might be to a geography. in the case of horizon, we're all about new jersey all day every day but there are broader populations. thinking about our population, we look at persons with a certain condition like diabetes and that group. so, as individuals, we might be young, healthy 20-somethings and part of the population, as well. it might be around high-risk behaviors, preventive services. so really, think about population health as not just forgetting about the individual identity and who you are as a human being. that's still very much alive and well with physicians like us and with the health systems we work with. that said, we then look at and