tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN December 12, 2016 8:00pm-12:01am EST
congressman -- as president-elect donald trump selects his cabinet, and the republicans and democrats prepare for the next congress, we'll take you to key events as they happen. without interruption. watch live on c-span. watch on demand at c-span.org or listen on our free c-span radio app. >> tuesday, the american bar association. at&t ceo randall stephenson said last week that proposed merger with time warner with benefit -- [ inaudible ] the committee will come to order. good afternoon.
i want to begin by thanking the members as well as the panelists. all of whom are present for participating in today's forum on the electoral college. we're holding this panel because recent election answers public sentiment made it clear there are serious problems with the present system for electing our president and vice president. we began with the fact that hillary clinton received more than 2.5 million more popular votes than donald trump. the largest divergent between the popular and electoral votes in our nation's history. this constitutes the very definition of any democratic, in my view. under our current system, the
votes of millions of people in non-swing states are effectively lost when they vote for the candidate who loses their state because all of that state's electoral votes will be given to the other candidate. this is why members of congress over three years -- over the years have introduced more than 700 proposals, 700 proposals, to eliminate the electoral college. this is why 11 states accounting for 164 electoral votes have entered an interstate compact to cast their electoral votes for the popular vote winner. and legislation to enter the compact has been passed by at least one legislative chamber in five more states. and this is why a recent gallup
poll showed more than 60% of the voters support direct popular election for president. we also must face up to the cold reality that the electoral college is rooted in slavery. and here's how that works out. as professor amar explains to us, slave states opposed direct elections for the president because in a direct election system, the north would outnumber the south who many slaves could not vote. but the electoral college instead let each southern state count its slaves although with a two-fifths discount. they accounted for three-fifths
of a person in computing share of the overall count. now, the arguments in defense of the electoral college on the other hand are in my view somewhat anachronistic. electoral college defenders say that it serves to check the passions of ordinary voters. yet the framers did not account for the rise of political parties when creating the electoral college. in fact, the electoral college today serves to aggravate those passions with most of our citizens told that they're living in either a red or a blue state rather than part of a single indivisible union. helps protect small population states in rural areas from
domination by large population states in urban areas. in fact, under our current system, candidates overlook most states, large and small. and instead focus most of their time, it seems to me, campaigning in only a few of the so-called swing states. it has also been argued that the electoral college serves to correct poor decisions by voters at a time when they were relatively ill informed because of nationwide communications were poor, literacy rates were low and the nation's political system was undeveloped. today, of course we live in an era of instant mass communication. high literacy rates.
and a robust and sophisticated political system. most importantly, i want everyone in this room to understand that today's forum is not an isolated event. rather it is part of an ongoing process that could lead to change and reform. whether that change will come through a constitutional amendment, an agreement between the states comprising 270 or more electoral college votes, or a subsequent interstate compact approved by congress. i cannot say and probably none of us can. each of these options presents important political legal questions. and i look forward to exploring them with you today.
but i can say the change only comes when we have discussions such as today when states experiment and take action. and when the people become directly engaged. as a member who cares very deeply about the future of our democracy and the principles of one person, one vote, i very much intend to remain engaged in this move -- in moving this issue forward. and i hope that all of you will join me in that activity. i want to now recognize, i think the distinguished gentleman from new york, mr. jerrold nadler, who has worked on these and other constitutional questions quite diligently.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased to join this forum on the electoral college in the future of american democracy and to hear from our distinguished panelists. i believe we must move away from the electoral college as it currently operates system guarantees the winner of the popular vote actually becomes the president of the united states. it shouldn't really be considered a radical idea. this is a matter of crucial importance to our democracy. and the good news, it's considered elementary in every other democratic country in the world. only here is it novel. the good news is that there are practical steps we can all take in our own states that could reform the electoral college and make a real difference in how the president is selected. as you know, the popular vote different from the electoral college vote in just three times in the 19th century. the last time then was in 1888. the electoral college did not differ from the popular vote again until 2000. 112 years when it didn't make a difference. so we as a nation got complacent.
we figured it was a relic but didn't matter. vice president al gore won the popular votes by about 540,000, but lost in the supreme court and awarded florida's votes to then-governor george bush by 537 votes. this year just 16 years later hillary clinton won the popular vote by 2.5 million votes. 2.5 million votes, and counting. but lost in the electoral college. the electoral college seems to be getting more disconnected from the popular vote. we didn't have to worry about it for 112 years and suddenly twice in 16 years and 2.5 million vote difference we are getting dangerously less democratic with a small d. it is time we got rid of the distorting influence of the electoral college on the popular will. some proponents of the electoral college argue that it is necessary to protect smaller states by giving them an outsized influence. however, the small states
already protected inso far as they need protection by having outside influence in the united states senate. by each state guaranteed two votes. wyoming was 600,000 people has the same two senators as california with i think 39 -- i don't know, 25, whatever, how many million. there are 53 seats, probably about 35 million people. and they don't need extra protection in the electoral college as well. in addition, the difference between the population of the small states and the large states today is much bigger now than it was when the constitution was written. we've gotten to the point where about 20% of the population of the united states can elect a majority of the united states senate. that's ample protection for the small states. we must also remember that the electoral college was designed to enhance the power of slave states. the southern states although they gave absolutely no rights obviously to slaves had their slaves counted as three-fifths of a person when it came to determining voting representation in the house.
and therefore in the electoral college. that motive although obviously no longer operative should not influence anything today. the other reason the electoral college was created was to protect us from democracy itself as well as from poor communications. the founders feared direct democracy. today we don't believe we need protection from democracy. and we are to move to a system that elects the president by popular vote. obviously, asking states that are benefitted by the electoral college to vote three-quarters, two-thirds in the senate and house and three-quarters legislatures is to ask a lot. but we don't have to do that. we have the national popular vote initiative. i was proud to play a role in ensuring that new york state a few years ago joined the initiative. and i think it makes sense to continue to pursue this method to render the electoral college moot. this method is an interstate
compact and states with 270 or more electoral votes agree that once 270 votes worth of states ratify that their electoral votes will be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote. this seems to me the way to go. whatever it takes, it's time to move past the electoral college and empower the voters, all the voters in this country to choose our president. let me say one thing a little off this. president-elect trump said that -- well, or maybe it was on his behalf, i think he said it himself, when it was pointed out he didn't have a mandate, that he got 2.5 million votes fewer than hillary clinton, he said, oh, if it were the popular vote i would have won the popular vote because i would have campaigned differently, i would have gone to some of the bigger states. he may be correct. obviously, if the rules of the game were changed, campaigning would change. and maybe that would have overturned that 2.5 million votes and maybe not. that's unknowable. but the fact is that's what ought to happen. that's what ought to happen.
the majority ought to rule in this country as in every other country, as in every other democratic country. i cannot think of any real or practical reason any longer to keep the electoral college, so i hope we'll proceed with reform. and i commend the chairman for taking initiative to call this hearing. i yield back. >> thank you so much. i'd like now to call on the distinguished gentleman from tennessee, the ranking member on the subcommittee on the constitution steve cohen. >> thank you, mr. chair. and thank you for calling this hearing. it's important that we discuss these issues particularly as we look upon this past election. and the coming vote of the electoral college. i have introduced recently hj res 104 which would amend -- on the electoral college and call for direct election. it is hard for people to fathom that at such a large plurality,
2.5 million people voted for one candidate and she is not the president. since i introduced my resolution, i have had quite a bit of comment on facebook, on twitter and with letters to the editor. it is amazing that most of the people that have responded have been against the proposal and that they consider these are most of the people who supported the candidate who was the populist and going to drain the swamp, but in their arguments they argue that allowing direct election would be the tyranny of the majority. and that you would let the rabble rule. well, it's ironic that their presidential candidate was kind of just the opposite. he was for the common man. he was for draining the swamp. and he was for changing things in that regard. the tyranny of the majority they talk about is kind of hard to fathom.
and oftentimes in our courts give us these rights although sometimes the bill of rights does and sometimes the congress does, and legislatures, but mostly it's the supreme court that protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority. and yet most of these folks that respond to me, and i check them out pretty close before i give them a bruce willis audios, they are not for most of those supreme court decisions that protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. so people seem to take their arguments based on the outcome. and i'm not pleased with the outcome. but i do know that intellectually the electoral
college is an anachronistic provision. it might have served well in the late 17 and 1800s, and while the founding fathers, all spelled with capital fs and wonderful gentlemen and i think the world of jefferson, he and the other founding fathers were not perfect. and they did have the three-fifths compromise. they did deal with slavery being a legal institution in this country and chose not to repeal it. they didn't give women the right to vote. and they didn't give people the right to elect directly united states senators. they believed in their power and that there was an ars tock ri si, most groups they don't like to see it changed. so they make it difficult to amend the constitution. and while they made it difficult, and this would be a difficult process to achieve through constitutional amendment, jefferson said, i am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and institutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.
as that becomes more developed, new lightened, new discoveries made and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, situations must advance also to keep pace with the times. we might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. so they did understand it, but they made it very difficult. very difficult. mr. nadler talks about the process where states could get together and had their candidates' electors pledge to support who won the national vote. another thing states could do is to have the electors be by congressional districts. because when you have the electors by congressional, that would make it a little bit more democratic. it would make it better and make candidates come to your state. they argue now that small states would be ferreted out and you would have new york and california decide everything. well, i think most of these people that write this don't want new york and california people to have any say whatsoever. but they're americans. even if they live on a coast. and even if they live in two of our greatest states, they're still americans and their vote should count the same as
somebody in south dakota or wyoming or montana. and none of the presidential candidates go to those small states. in reality all of the campaigning is done in those battleground states, which are not small states. and where do they have their rallies? in pennsylvania, virginia, florida and ohio, the big ten. not the small states. i yield back the balance of my time. >> okay. there isn't much balance left. >> i learned that from you, jackson lee. >> i am pleased now to recognize the distinguished gentleman from virginia, bobby scott. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for calling this. this is, i think, a very timely issue as there's been a lot of discussion about the electoral college since the electoral college went one way and the popular vote went the other. i think the discussion needs to
be there are a couple of kind of anomalies, one is this faithless elector. i think we ought to just talk about whether or not we're going to score by winning states or by a state popular vote. can be taken care of independently. but i've been little disturbed by just the fixation on the mathematical curiosity that you could win the electoral vote and lose the popular vote. of course if it's close there's a good chance one will go one way and one the other, but if you've already set the rules as you're winning by state, then that ought to be what you are considering. i mean, you could win the world series. you could lose the first three games 10-0 and win the next four 1-0, you've been outscored 30-4 and still win the world series. so nobody thinks there's anything curious about that because you're winning -- you won four games. and so i think we'd rather than fixate -- being fixated on the mathematical curiosity that you could win one and lose the other, i think we ought to look at what happened if you went to a straight popular vote and how that would change things and whether or not that would be good or bad.
one of the things i would point out that might not be a good thing is trying to do a national recount in a very close election. it's my understanding that during the florida recount in new york and texas they found boxes of uncounted votes. well, wasn't enough to change the direction, but if that was the national recount, you'd have to count those empty boxes. you can imagine a very partisan secretary of state certifying the election results where more votes were counted than they had registered people. now, what are you -- exactly how are you going to consider that? election laws are not the same all over the country. but one of the things about the electoral college is it requires you to get support in a state weighted basis in more than -- in a majority of the states, weighted by population. a regional candidate doesn't have much of a chance. you could run up the score in
one area. it doesn't help you because you've got to get support -- you actually have to win states in a majority of the states. what affect would a straight popular vote have on regional candidates and third party candidates on the idea that you could win on a plurality possibly without winning any states? so very few states. i think one the congressional election i would take issue with my friend from tennessee, you could win virginia, pennsylvania, ohio, michigan and florida, win all those states, and end up with a substantial deficit on congressional districts just because of gerrymandering. we're not electing our president based on gerrymandered congressional districts. i hope we wouldn't go there, but generally how would campaigns be different? friend from new york mentioned mr. trump said he could have won the popular vote because he would have campaigned differently if that's how the score would be. he would have in states where he
has a huge majority he would have just spent time running up the score and possibly change the election. is that a good change or a bad change? so rather than just recite the mathematical curiosity that you could win one and lose the other, i'd hope the panelists will tell us how the campaigns would be different and whether or not the difference is a good thing or another. i want to thank all of our witnesses for being with us today, especially my freshman roommate from college, professor kessar. thank you. >> you're welcome. and thank you. we're asking the members of the panel to reduce their introductory comments to two or three minutes because it keeps getting larger and larger. next is zoe lofgren of california.
>> thank you, mr. chairman. unfortunately i'm going to have to leave in a few minutes, but i think this is a very important discussion. coming from california i'm mindful that the votes of my constituents count one-third as compared to a wyoming resident. and looking ahead for the stability of our democracy, i don't think that is a sustainable model. that my constituents will be ruled by people whose votes count three times as much as theirs. that is aggravated by disparity in taxation where california, for example, pays more than it gets in services from the federal government whereas some of the smaller states whose votes count three times as much as my constituents actually are net recipients of federal tax dollars. you know, this is barely sustainable today, but if you look 50 years in advance where
the bigger states are getting bigger and the little states are losing population, i don't think we can sustain our american democracy by having the majority ruled by the minority. and so the question is how to fix this since the constitution is written in such a way that it's almost impossible to amend. there are two things that i think i hope the panel will address and i will get a full report. one is dr. koez's interstate compact idea and whether the compact can avoid interference by the house of representatives in the senate. and the second is the issue of the constitutional convention. we are three states away from calling for a constitutional convention. it's something i've always been opposed to. you cannot limit the subject matter to a single subject, the
balanced budget amendment. but i'll say because of for the second time in 16 years the people, the american voters elected did not in fact become president, rational people, not the fringe, are now talking about whether states could be separated from the u.s., whether we should have a constitutional convention. and i think as time goes on that is apt to become more the case unless we here can figure an answer to preventing the majority from being ruled by the minority. and i thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank you, ma'am. i'd like now to recognize the gentleman from rhode island, mr. david cicilline. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for convening this forum on this very important subject. and i particularly want to welcome our very distinguished witnesses who have studied and written extensively on the subject of the electoral college. and welcome you and thank you for being here and being part of this discussion and particularly
to welcome our newest colleague, jimmy rascon, who i know has done extensive thinking on this and writing and we look forward to hearing his comments of course. i'm proud to say that rhode island is a participant of the national popular vote compact to ensure that participant states pledge their electoral votes to the candidates who win the national popular vote as congressman lofgren just referenced. so i'm proud to be from a state that recognizes the importance of this. what i think is troubling for so many americans is, you know, we recognize this basic fundamental principle of democracy, and that is the right of citizens to elect their own leaders. and of course implicit within that is an understanding that every vote must be counted, that no one's vote will count more than another person's vote. these are sort of basic principles of democracy. and of course the electoral college distorts that in so many ways. and so i think one of the things i find particularly challenging is it's very hard to explain
this to young people who don't quite understand why it is that all this stuff they've learned about with one person, one vote and everyone's vote counting equally why that actually doesn't -- is not actually the way that we elect our president. and then we have examples in our lifetime of people who have won the popular vote or choice of majority of americans does not become president. this is very challenging to explain to folks. i think it becomes even more difficult when we think about our work internationally. you know, we do a lot of work to promote democracy and governance and to be an example to the world in a variety of different ways, and it's hard to explain that we in fact in our own country don't have a system which allows people's votes to be counted equally in electing our own president. so i think this has really serious -- raises very serious concerns in the long term legitimacy of our own democracy if we don't elect our own president by one person, one vote. but i think it also impacts the work we attempt to do, the good
work we attempt to do around the world. i thank you again, mr. chairman, the opportunity to discuss and welcome the panelists and thank you for the work you're all doing. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. cicilline. i now turn to the gentleman from georgia, mr. hank johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank take this opportunity to discuss and i want to welcome the panelists and i thank you for the work you are doing. i want to thank you for this hearing. this is the first one that's occurred since 1997, so it's been about 20 years since congress has addressed this issue with a hearing. and since that time we've had two instances where suicide for president have been elected based on the electoral vote after having failed to garner the majority of the popular vote.
prior to that, it was over 176-year period between 1824 and the year 2000 that produced three such anomalies. and so it appears that time, the process of time, technological advancement, all of these things are playing into the acceleration of this phenomenon where the people go to the polls, vote and then their popular vote does not translate into victory for the candidate that they voted for. this is anti-democratic. it's hurting our democracy. people expect more. people expect direct representation. that's a fundamental principle that people expect. not a whole lot of people pay a lot of attention to the electoral college system. particularly since back in 20 --
or back in 1913, the constitution was amended so that we could have direct elections of united states senators. if we had not passed that amendment, people would -- this would be unacceptable. as it is unacceptable as more people come up -- come to the notion -- or come to the conclusion that their popular vote did not produce the winner in the presidential election. so it's time for us to get to work to change this system so that the people's will is achieved. and that is for them to be able to depend on their popular vote to win an election. and so i am looking forward to the comments of the panelists. and with that i will yield back. >> thank you, mr. johnson. incidentally, everyone on this
panel is a member of the judiciary committee with the exception of mr. gene green of texas. oh, bobby scott is an ex-member. yes. he's here by virtue of his very -- yes, emeritus is the word i'm thinking of right now. thank you so much. i am now going to turn to the gentle lady from california, miss judy chu. >> well, i want to thank ranking member conyers for holding this important forum on the electoral college. in my home state of california, the popular vote dramatically went for secretary clinton,
while some ballots are still being counted leaving opportunity for the gap to widen even further, recent vote tallies show that clinton received nearly 8.7 million votes to trump's 4.4 million. so the difference comes out to 4.2 million votes in hillary clinton's favor. what does it say about the electoral process and the legitimacy of the election results when one of the world's largest centers of economic activity and innovation and one of the country's most pop yu list and diverse states, california, favors the losing candidate by a margin almost equal to the amount received by the winning candidate? obviously something has to be done about this electoral college. and i look forward to hearing from the panelists what can be done to change it, what is feasible, a constitutional amendment or the national popular vote interstate compact. we need change. and i look forward to hearing from all the panelists on your thoughts regarding this subject.
>> thank you very much, judy. we now turn to the gentleman from texas, mr. gene green. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for allowing me to speak even though i'm not even an emeritus of the committee. but i do hold a law license. thank you for having this hearing. my name is gene green, i represent a very urban district in houston, texas. and my colleague, congressman lee and i are neighbors in houston. i have the honor of representing a district that's about 76% predominantly hispanic, in our community mexican-american, northeast and south side houston. our common complaint at home is that my vote when we talk about people voting, your vote counts. well, it doesn't count in our district for president. hillary clinton carried our district over 70%. and yet no matter how many more
people we turned out would not make a difference in the electoral votes from texas. and that's the frustrating. this is not the first time i've introduced this resolution. after 2000 i introduced it in over a number of years and hopefully i was hoping this wouldn't happen again, but we see what's happened. that's what's frustrating. last month secretary clinton and senator kaine received 72% of the vote in our district. 43% statewide making closest race for vice president and president in texas in 20 years, nevertheless 100% of those votes texas electoral votes all 38 went to donald trump and governor pence. naturally secretary clinton is currently leading mr. trump by 2.7 million, but mr. trump is expected to receive 306 electoral votes. i don't hold out hope that there will be any change in that. and that's why i think the
electoral college is outlived its usefulness. we know the history of it. there were a lot of compromises just like we do every day here in congress that may not last for 100 years, much less 200-plus. and nowadays i think we ought to be able to have people's vote counted whether in urban houston or urban new york or even central valley california that may be predominantly republican. that's why i think the abolishment of the electoral college is if we can trust the people to vote for members of the house by majority, we changed it instead of our state legislators selecting our u.s. senators, we changed it where it will be a majority vote 1913. i think we can trust the people with electing the majority who would vote -- who would elect president of the united states. and, mr. chairman, i'll submit my full statement into the record. but i just appreciate the time today. >> thank you, sir. and now we have the distinguished gentle lady from
texas, miss sheila jackson lee, pleased to recognize her. >> mr. chairman, thank you so very much. i thank you for your courage for holding this hearing and for those of you who are present, as well as i'd like to mention the congressional progressive caucus because we are joined together. as my colleague from texas said, voices can be extinguished and our silence to the electoral college structure which i join with a number of voices in asking for its abolishment, let me also say that i will be calling for official hearings both in the house and senate. i hope there will be sufficient courage to go ahead and address what i think is an indictment on a democratic system of which the world looks to the united states for its integrity. i would offer two examples that elections have consequences. one of which of course is the
most famous with rutherford b. hayes and samuel tildon, 1988, samuel tildon outpolling rutherford b. hayes. and of course we know that was the compromise of which fell on the backs of freed slaves who were at that time going through the reconstruction period. and what happened is that the south rose again. and the oppression of african-american freed men and women was turned upsidedown. we lived a life of horror into the early 1900s because of that compromise. elections have consequences. in addition, as we see today in an election where a headline now reads, if i might, indicate that headline hillary clinton's margin is about to surpass all the trump votes in 12 states combined. but the real idea is if you would are the consequences. we now see a seeking of a waiver
of a standing rule about the utilization of the military and civilian leadership being shoved on to the floor of the house. we see the threat of the repeal of the affordable care act. we see the potential for cuts in medicare and medicaid. i hope in your discussion that you will think of these things as i close, to explore the history, purpose -- can there be order, please? to explore the history, purpose and continued utility of the electoral college. and to address the question of whether this comports with the rule of law and our constitutional framework of equality for all in the bill of
rights. and i would equally want to hear from the witnesses, if i could, to reflect on the national popular vote interstate compact versus a constitutional process. i'm excited about the compact. i think it's a winnable one. but we want to do it in a way that embraces americans regardless of their party affiliation. the shoe is on one foot in 2016. it can always be on another foot at another time. let me also acknowledge, professor congressman raskin, and thank you for your leadership. with that, i yield back. >> thank you for your brevity. i appreciate it. we also want to acknowledge and welcome jan of illinois, but we're going to move to our many witnesses who have been very patient with us. we are asking you to limit your
own remarks to three minutes. and we're going to begin with professor jamie raskin, a constitutional law professor and one who seeks to join the house judiciary committee as soon as possible. and we welcome you here, professor raskin. >> thank you, ranking member -- >> turn on your mike. >> you spilled my secret to the whole world here, but, yes, it would be a great honor to join you there. and hello to the distinguished members of the judiciary committee. i see three basic problems with the way presidential elections are conducted today. the first is that the campaigns themselves are not democratic. as congressman cohen was saying. the second is that the institutions are not republican. and the third is that the
results are not majoritarian or pluraltarian, if we can coin the word. there's a practical solution underway as congresswoman jackson lee says, the national popular vote agreement, and it arises not surprisingly from a movement of the people in the states. let me start with this. the campaigns are not democratic in character. think about what democracy means from the standpoint of your district. one person, one vote, all votes count equally, and the person who gets the most votes wins. that's how we elect governors. that's how we elect u.s. senators, council members, mayors, everybody. except for the president of the united states. and some have said, well, if we do it the way we elect governors and senators, then some people are not going to get any attention in the process. can you imagine running for governor in your state and saying i'm only going to go to two or three of the eight congressional districts in my state. i'm not going to campaign in the others. it just doesn't make sense. but our presidential campaigns are different. consider 2016. there were never more than a
dozen states in play, meaning the people living in 38 states, the vast majority of us, never saw any competitive campaigning in our states. we belong to the ignored and forgotten group of backdrop americans whose political interests and desires are taken for granted in campaigns. people living in three of the country's four largest states, texas safe red, california and new york safe blue are bypassed completely. no rallies, no barn storming speeches, no tv ads, no field offices, no campaigning except for fund raising events to harvest money to export to other states. that's not only undemocratic, it's bizarre. aha, you say, the electoral college must then work brilliantly for the small states if not for the big ones. nope. in 2016 in our most recent five elections, 12 of the 13 smallest states, those with only three or four electors have been total fly-over country. hillary clinton did not spend any time, money or resources contesting the small red states of north dakota, south dakota, montana, alaska, idaho or
wyoming. and donald trump expended zero resources competing for the votes of americans living in the small blue states of rhode island, delaware, vermont, hawaii or the district of columbia. of the 13 smallest states, only new hampshire, already blessed by its primacy in the primaries attracts campaign visits and budgets in field offices and so on. all told the dozen smallest states in the country have about the same population as ohio. and because of the two senatorial bonus electors, they actually have 40 electors compared to ohio's 18. but while the presidential candidates spend tens of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of staff hours in ohio, they spend essentially zero resources and time fighting in any of the small states except for new hampshire because it happens to have a rough equivalency of democrats and republicans. the candidates don't go to big states or small states. they go to swing states. and within that lucky band of states they go to the big ones.
fully two-thirds of the events staged by the clinton and trump tickets in this year took place in only six states, florida, north carolina, virginia, pennsylvania, ohio and michigan. amazingly almost every single appearance and event by the campaigns happened in just 12 states. so the vast majority of americans were simply left on the sidelines. and this has a predictable effect on voter turnout. in 2012, for example, the swing states saw nine points higher voter turnout than the safe states did. which makes sense because the reason that people go to vote is because someone gets them to go vote. you're about to gavel me, mr. chairman. okay. i wanted to respond to some things that congressman scott asked. but let me just say this about the national popular vote plan, if i can. this is the way that major institutional political changes have happened in our country. the states do it first. so we had the problem. another undemocratic filtering institution in our country which was state legislatures appointing u.s. senators.
and the way that we dealt with that was the state legislatures said we're going to delegate it to the people to decide. and enough of them did it that it built the momentum for a constitutional amendment. i believe that if we were more than halfway there in terms of the national popular vote plan, when we get there we will do it for one or two rounds. it will be very clear that it works. and then we will go ahead and amend the constitution to abolish the electoral college. thank you very much for your patience. >> thank you very much, professor, member of congress jamie raskin. our next witness is from yale university, teaches constitutional law, clerked for stephen breyer, now a justice, but he clerked for him in 1984 when he was a judge. he's won awards from american bar association and has been cited in over 30 cases before
the united states supreme court. welcome professor amar. >> thank you, mr. chair, it's an honor to be here. i think it was mentioned that there was a hearing on the electoral college in 1997, and i remember testifying at that hearing. and expressing some skepticism about the electoral college. and i remember representative scott, especially some skepticism about my skepticism. so here we are again. and we've had two presidential elections in the meantime and representative scott, i warned you. no. in fact, i don't believe that the current electoral college has a partisan skew. indeed, one of the things to be said on behalf of reform is that it's not a partisan measure.
in 2001, i posted something on the internet that was sort of a fantasy, a dream about how we could have direct election as a practical matter without constitutional amendment, which is very difficult. and that was a prototype, an early prototype of what became the national popular vote interstate compact. i share jamie's view that at best the national popular interstate compact is a weigh station toward what would be a more permanent solution which would be a federal constitutional amendment. i think that analogy that was just made to how states improvise direct election of senators before the constitution was formerly amended to codify that work around is just the right one. and that's the way to think about the national popular vote interstate compact. i actually think that that reform movement of which, and i was sort of in an early proponent kind of, does have some technical problems with it. and if we could talk about what
those are. and it's not, i think -- so it would require some legislative fixes. but why should we do any of that? why should we try to move towards something like that? and i think the idea that's been expressed so well by so many here is an idea of one person, one vote, it's a deep idea that everyone's vote counts equally. and that therefore everyone is a swing voter. whether you're an urban voter in houston, texas, or rural voter in the central valley of california, whether you're in a swing state or not a swing state, everyone is a swing voter. and everyone's an equal voter. that's the great democratic idea. and it's not just an idea that's true of countries around the world. it's a deeply american idea because as jamie mentioned that's how we pick every governor in america, a governor is a mini-president. and in 48 of the states they have four-year terms, elected independent of the legislature,
not like prime ministers. they have veto pens, pardon pens, they become presidents or a presidential candidate, and we have a one person, one vote idea for them. we don't have a problem with purely regional candidates, we don't have a third party problem. we don't have a recount problem. we don't use congressional districts or legislative districts. it works for every governor. it could work in america. and thank you very much, mr. chair. >> thank you very much, sir. we now turn to our next important witness author of six books, professor of law -- professor jack rakove, we welcome you as a pulitzer prize winner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to make three basic
points about the origin and evolution of the electoral college and say something briefly about having a national popular vote by interstate compact. first, we should not give the >> near the end of their deliberations. and political science for a national republican executive. the framers assume that the people were often among an array of candidates making a decisive choice impossible. that would deprive the president of the political independence
the framers wish to give the executive unless it was a single material that they opposed. it replicated decisions the frailers had already reached. they combined in the first round of voting with with the equal state vote and the second contingent round that many framers expected would often occur but on the crucial questions determining who they would be and how they would be appointed and whether they would be legally bound they defaulted the entire problem to the states. second, as soon as they began the short comers and the expectations became evident. had there been a popular election in 1796 and another and it would have been decisive. and disinterested citizens and immediately evaporated and
always were and never would be creatures of their parties. we're not in control of individuals and began experimenting with the rules of that appointment. a number of states offered their rules from the advantage. and even though it's in 2,000 and it's divided into nearly equal political halves. thus the original history and it's not something that we need to admire or feel bound to obey. i join with many other critics in the standard criticism of our current system. it violates the fundamental rule that every vote should have the same weight where ever it's cast and it's essentially a demographic accident. and it's the culture would be better served and turn out their voters and there's two
critisisms that merit further attention. first the last three serious legitimacy. and will say the same thing. there's multiple explanations for these attacks and the recurring speck to of a country contributes to a sense of national division. to be elected by truly and not wholly solve this problem but will help to mitigate it. second any attempt to control the system has to be able to think critically about his relationship to the federal system and does reflecting that status is not the same thing as protecting it. and the existence of the federal system is somehow dependent on it. it's already protected both by the division of authority
between the national government and the states and by the roll that members of both play in represented their constituents interests. it adds nothing to these memorial service jumps and it would be that case. and finally i'll make this place briefly. and and i do not understand how the national popular vote and escape the compact clause of article one section 10 and once you're there you're going to be back to article 5 amendment. so i want to insist if you want to deal with this issue there's no choice but to go with the article 5 and coming up with a strategy for doing that. thank you very much and i apologize for taking perhaps a few more seconds than i deserve. >> you're very welcome. our next witness is professor
whose book was cited by the american historical association and the historical society and it was the finalist and put ser prize award and we're welcome and we're fortunate to welcome you to this committee for this discussion. and take the liberty of the forth coming book i have with the ap titled why d doo we stil have the electoral college. i want to say things differently than my colleagues have said not to repeat and i very much endorsed the case many of the members have made about the need to abollish the electoral
college and replace it with one or another. and make it soundly and i would end one small piece of it and unless they think they're very rare incidents when the gap can happen. on 17 other occasions when 75,000 votes or fewer would have produced the same outcome of the loser of the popular vote winning the election let me make a few other points on separate issues. it is very difficult to amend the constitution and the college has been extremely unpopular.
now close to 1,000 amendment resolutions have been introduced to congress and on 7 occasions such a resolution was approved by one branch of congress and on two occasions it was approved by one branch and lost by a whisker in the other branch. the reasons why this has never quite happened are many and complicated but the interest of members of congress have triumphed over not only the public interest and over their own previously articulated views
they were mistaken or shot lived. they got it wrong or was proved wrong in a short period of time. it's not just the case that it was perceived in slavery but that the policies of race and con flick have been instrumental to preserving the electoral college over our history. one more comment and that's the vote in the mid 20th century. on the national popular vote
interstate compact i agree with my colleagues here intending to see it as a way station. one of my concerns is that i think an interstate compact such as the ones run up is inherently unstable because states are with drawing from it. and between the 1790s and the states gained the system depending on their partisan interests. >> thank you very much. >> our next witness is representative and first
witnesses to come this afternoon and has received a numerous awards and authored a book on the constitution titled reclaim liberty. >> thank you very much mr. chairman and members. i am state representative bob thorpe. i serve as the chairman of house committee on education and higher education in government. i'm honored to address your committee and to lend a state perspective to this discussion. in 2016 i was one of 154 republican legislators to sponsor the national popular vote interstate compact.
federal action to change or eliminate the system is impossible to achieve as it would require 2-thirds of congress and oppose a amendment to the u.s. constitution and three quarters of the state to ratify it. that said it grants us state legislatures the authority to address shortcomings within the current system. far too many american voters are left on the political sidelines when we elect the president of the united states and battleground states have much greater political influence in states like arizona. and federal policy during the campaign and when government. mr. trump won clear victory
under the system's current rules. they did so in part by making promises every candidate makes and promised to he keep his hands off social security and medicare for the battle ground state and voters in florida. and it's not good for the nation as a whole. arizona's 11 electoral votes cannot counter that influence of background state voters. and should be valued as much by a president as a voter from florida or ohio. during the last five presidential elections the ten smallest states received no campaign events during the general election in the lead up to the 2012 presidential campaign the battleground state of ohio received 48 visits alone. ohio has the same number of
people as those ten small states combin combined. state driven reforms gives small states an active voice in rural interests a permanent promise during the presidential elections. state based reforms and compact are better use for arizona's electoras than current winners take all. and states used this authority 13 times. it would be wrong to strip away constitutionally granted authority from the states.
and wins the most popular vote in all 50 statements and it makes every voter in every state equal and politically relevant during the presidential elections. it is problematic. for future presidential elections the states and not congress have the ability to make every vote in every state matter. thank you and mr. chairman can i have just five more seconds? >> how about four. >> four will do it. if i can give a personal perspective on the state of arizona where we only have 17% of our land in private ownership. if i can repeat that compared to the eastern states arizona only has 17% of our land. so what does that mean? it means greatly reduced property tax but also representation in this body and
when it becomes to electorate so in comparison to the eastern states. and one of the huge problems. >> your point is well taken. i noticed you exceeded it by at least three seconds. >> thank you very much, sir. representative, estate representative and in four terms in the vermont legislature and sits on the board of national popular vote incorporated. welcome to our panel.
>> thank you mr. chair and members and i'm proud to tell you that. >> congratulations. >> i have been involved for a long time and where it stands. and explains a path to a popular vote. it's my interest in change which has left me supporting the electoral college but critical of the winner take all rule which is, in fact, the state law that produces the red-blue map that we are so familiar with. as you know it has been -- i won't say here but the constitution does give states exclusive power and my written system covers a lot of ground but i'll try to cover points that have not been made and try to answer some of the questions
brought up. in addition to the aberrations in a presidential election which favors such few states and such a small portion of our country we have not covered governance but sitting in the white house, president who is are interested in re-election or in getting their own party successor into office do place an enormous preference and this is important. battleground states get more disaster declaration and faster they get more no child left behind waivers. >> others here mention the myth that small states benefitted in the college as it works today and i would echo that but 1/6th
lives in rural part of the country and we can look. we don't have to guess. we can look at how presidential campaigns happen today in battleground states where every vote is equal and the person with the most votes win. let's look at ohio in 2012. it received a great -- almost 30% of the campaign happened in ohio they account for 54% of the population and enjoyed 52% of the campaign rallies enjoyed 23%
of the campaign and the 53 rural counts account for 25% of the population and got, indeed, 25% of the campaign events so we can see that campaigns will reflect exactly the structure of where the population lives nobody will be left out when it is about margins everywhere. you get in your car and drive to new hampshire. this is absurd but grass roots will have a role to play. we'll still you late the discussion and try to get another thousand votes for our preferred candidate to make up for the margin in states it's mentioned that we should consider a congressional district southern land. it's double fold.
we would trade 12 battleground states for some 20 battleground districts if you could have it everywhere. but secondly there's no reason why it would necessarily spread because the more states that came on board with the district system would advantage the remaining winner take allstates so this is sort of a self-halting reform and if we were worried about that states do have power to remove them from the process you cannot effectively have a recount. this is an area where congress does have power because you have authority and there are proposals that have come forward that would improve that but we should not pretend that a recount would be impossible or workable. it's not workable today. let me just say the compact clause.
national popular vote is an interstate compact and has a precondition before it takes effect. there is an active debate about whether or not it's very consistent that unless it infringes on federal authority there would be no need for congressional approval so we believe that the interstate compact and popular vote is only obviously taking advantage of state power. however we would be coming to congress seeking approval at a time when states represented 270 electors have enacted this bill
and presumably we look forward to working with you. >> thank you very much sir. our last person, thomas neil is a specialist with with the congressional research service and he is available as a resource to answer any member's questions that may arise so with that we want to begin brief questioning by the members of the panel and it's my pleasure to recognize first representative bobby scott of virginia. >> thank you mr. chairman. as i said in my opening comments most of the comments, virtually all of the comments are based on the curiosity that in an close
election the electoral college and popular vote may not agree. if that's what you count just like in the world series you can get outscored but still win. we heard a lot about the swing states. if -- one thing about a swing state is it assumes that you have in the bag enough to get close to 270 and so you're going to spend your time on the last couple of states just like if the president is trying to get a bill passed when you get close to 218 in the house a hand full of members get all the attention. but that assumes you have enough to get you close. you have to have a majority -- you have to be able to carry states that amount to on a weighted basis 270 electoral votes half of the country and if you don't have that swing states
don't have any meaning at all. the question that i asked is how things would change. rather than trying to get from 49 to 51 in a swing state is that a good change or a bad change and what kind of different candidates would be elected. we heard recount. the idea that you're going to do a national recount is absurd. you're not going to be able to and you're going to have state secretaries of state that you don't trust any further than you can throw them coming up with numbers that are just not credible and what are you going to do in that situation? different states have different election laws. but campaigning strategy, how would it differ on a straight popular vote and is that change good or bad and what kind of
candidates would get elected? finally a regional candidate if you have a candidate that's strong in one region running against two or three people strong in their region, you don't have that now because if your a regional candidate you don't have a credible shot at 270. >> that's not just the curiosity that you can win one and lose the other. >> would you like our witnesses to respond? >> ask questions and i think we'll give answers hopefully to the questions. >> i turn now to the distinguished gentle lady from texas. sheila jackson lee.
>> it's a tough fight but worthwhile fight and has to be done and their capacity to elect the leader of the nation at that time. one thing that i wasn't sure what you were saying but i do want to correct if you had an interpretation that i said that the electoral college was born out of slavery, no it was not started in 1888 but it was started before that. there was hayes and tildon and
by the compromise of mr. hayes getting to be the leader of the free world the south received a bonus of removing the union soldiers and the one that protected the southern opportunities for free slaves that were then governs and s senators and congress people and my analysis was that elections have consequences. consequences of the individual that will asend to the office will be major cuts in medicare and medicaid and a tax system that will break the backs of most working americans and elimination of the affordable care act. seemingly ignoring conflict of interest and looking to
undermine laws that had a separation of military and civilian. i wanted to make sure that i clarified that i didn't associate the electoral college to slavery but one thing i did want to ask, do i have it correctly? it was -- i want to what we might desire 5 or 10, 15 years from now it would be counted and we have to accept it and i would be interested more importantly
the value of a campaign. they'll always try to get around doing work but i think you have a greater chance if you rely on the popular vote for candidates to say i'm going to try to get the vote the only way to do it is the amendment. if you have done some work about the fractures of the potential impact and meaning that states could gain the system i would be interested and the last point is i want to acknowledge a young man who just had a press conference on one nation one vote. we should think about young people. he has taken his frustration and put it into a nonprofit and how
you can dousing the hopes and dreams of the younger generation that are literal and you help elect a president or someone or not. that's going to be the larger population of voters. what are we telling them that despite whether numbers are up or down those that voted heavily weighted their vote so as the new voters come into the voting process we're going to have an answer if we are going to continue to encourage them to be part of the democracy and i welcome your thoughts on those points. i yield back. >> thank you so much. >> i turn to the distinguished chairman from georgia mr. hank johnson. >> i'd like to know from the
professor the answer to this question. to what extent did the history of slavery shake the development of the college and were there any other historical conditions, political concerns or interests that motivated the framers to establish. and do those concerns still exist. >> thank you, sir. is there someone going to respond to this? >> everyone starting with their next witness. >> i'll try to engage all of
them. candidates will campaign differently. my claim is look to the states. we have governs of big states and diverse states that have big cities and states called california and texas and i don't think they have campaigned in ways that should make us anxious about using that template mar e marbly. now there's recounts in states. california is a big state. you have to answer a recount i share representative scotts concern that a national recount raises issues. in 2,000 it was clear who won the popular vote.
and yet we had to do recounts in 3 different sates. florida, new mexico and new hampshire so actually under the current, let's take the most recent election, it's clear who won nationally. it's actually less than completely clear who won in michigan or pennsylvania. in recent history the national has been clear and states have been clear and we have had recount problems and here's where i agree with representative scott completely. if you have a national popular vote you'll need a national recount southern land and oversight and you cannot leave it to the secretaries of the different states and that's going to require congressional oversight whether or not the compact strictly speaking rekwiers congressional oversight under the clause of the
constitution a system will not work without congressional oversight because states that are not in the compact may try to game it in all sorts of ways. they may not participate in recounts. they may not -- they may come in and out as he mentioned so you're going to need national oversight and i say that to you all with due respect as one of two people who actually -- whose brain child that national popular vote interstate compact was. this merged from two ideas independently of dean and professor robert bentley and yours truly in 2001 and when i saw the promise of it but there are these technical problems and the system will not work without congressional oversight which will require national recount
possibiliti possibilities. i'm delighted we have them testifying. in 2004 john kerry could have had more popularity in ohio. 60,000 votes changes hands in ohio. he wins the electoral college by losing the national popular vote by 3 million. i don't think there's a partisan screw today. that's why i was joking earlier. there's not but this would be if we went to congressional districts and state proportionality. that would skew the system to the republican party in ways that i could go into right now.
we don't have them in california and texas and pennsylvania. we do have them for the electoral college. we have them more for the electoral college. and even if you can't win nationally you can be a spoiler and throw things into the house of representatives and change the outcome and be the king maker so we have a bigger problem with them than we have for governors. one point even though the question wasn't addressed to me the role that slavery played is not merely with the founding after two elections many which
he ran against a northerner adam and the southern won the south both times and the northerner won the north both times and it was amended without votes created by slavery. they win that with 13 extra votes. my friend is maybe shaking his head but i can show you that that's what every adams supporter says including people in this house that said we were robbed but the biggest one is not created at philadelphia
that's the 12th amendment system and there's a whole book on it called negro president and it's not well-known actually just how large a role slavery played in the early elections the chairman has come into the panel and we welcome him. he has been here before during this hearing and if he wanted to make any observations we welcome hill at this time.
>> i came today to listen. this is a subject that i have a lot of interest in. people are stopping me on the streets wanting to know about this thing called the electoral college. they never heard of it before some of them say. i don't know where they were in bush versus gore. but many people do not understand the electoral college and we have to have a very robust debate now in this country about whether or not it's wise to continue with the system or whether he we want to move and gravitate toward the popular vote. i don't have an appropriate answer so i look forward to hearing as much as i can today. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. let's continue with the rest of
the panel. if i wanted to imagine the most likely change in our system if we had a national popular vote by my way of thinking done by article 5 amendment rather than an unstable interstate compact i assume if the parties were competitive nationally which i believe they would continue to be that they would at that point had a strong incentive to turn out their votes where ever their votes were. so they wouldn't just be hanging out in new york and bay area and chicago and so on they would have to come up with a variety
of strategies. that's going to be more easy in the future than in the past and i think in maximizing public interest in the election and not having this feeling that i'm in a majority or red state or blue state or whatever. i think i agree that instead of thinking about how would you recount individual states. if you had a national popular vote there would be only one constituent sy. and under the time phrases and management clause in the constitution congress has the authority to intervene and determine how elections were to be conducted. it would be the classic example
it's certainly an important factor in the original construction of the electoral college. it was part of a set of compromises as the frailers ran out of time and they, you know, and they built upon the whole compromises that they made previously but the tricky part in this and where i take issue with it is once you realize that the electoral college is there for manipulation and that on a state by state basis you can write and rewrite the rules is there is a whole set of rule changes. you have to take into account
all the other rule changes going on. there was no one model and the reason i'm very skeptical is if you compare the results what actually happened to state congressional districts the republican victory was so dramatic they reversed a lopsided margin and that's the best index and if you go on that index it's the best marker of what popular sentiment was at a time when there were a variety of procedures and while the slavery factor was important it's not determining in the way the professor suggests.
election rules. that would have been -- i realize in some quarters that would be controversial but i think you would get national uniformity of election rules and i do not regard those as a bad thi thing. >> we might end up with more across the nation and that would be something to consider and finally in response to congressman johnson's question about what were the other considerations going on in the minds in addition to slavery let me just say two things in
response to that, one is that there was this concern that a national election, which madison supported by the way, the national election would just not be feasible and it would be hard to get candidates and that's certainly not an objection which obtains today i mean back then they didn't even have youtube so in all the discussions that take place as they are going back and forth and trying to figure out how to choose a president and they keep changing their minds there's never a concept that the people have a right to vote is never invoked. it's never mentioned.
>> original intent is not something that we have relied on here. >> the words the right to vote now appeared five times in the constitution. the 14th amendment section 2 and 15th amendment and 24th amendment and 26th amendment. it's because of slavery and race i feel and all sorts of stuff that the founders could not acknowledge that. they didn't have anything in the original constitutions that the persons are equal. only the states are equal in the senate when you look for words like equal and rights to vote you won't find them in the original constitution but i promise you today when you look at your constitution and here i get to pull out my copy in honor of kaiser khan and tell you today the words right to vote appear not once but five times and equal appears there as well. >> mr. chairman could i refresh
the panelist memory on that the electoral college has consequences and screws it to the extent that they decide whether or not reconstruction survives. it decides whether or not we have a massive change in how health care is done and medicare is done and secondarily the point made about the strength of a compact it shall i think you made the point and if you have voters literal in their thinking how do you engage them in the understanding of this fix tour called the electoral college. i would appreciate if the remaining three panelists would
respond to those questions or at least include those in your answers. >> in response to congresswoman lee's comments i wanted to let you know that in arizona and arizona house we passed the national popular vote in the house bipartisanly. 20 republicans and 20 democrats which i think was one of your questions a little bit earlier. >> when you look at states like california republican voters are
disenfranchised and i would say that they are the votes cast. the votes didn't mean anything because none were awarded. i'd like to remind members that the way that our system of governance, we are a republic of course and our representative from our government. you are representatives here in washington that when you think about it our house members are elected directly, originally our senators were enacted and our framers of the constitution had
different thoughts in mind when it came to how different people were being selected and of course our legislators are selecting electors to represent the will of the states when it comes to the electoral college. and different parts of the government to see if they made sense and i'm not trying to be judgmental or anything but congress you voice some concerns about how the electoral behaves
and works. it's been around a long time. they could have mustered up the 2-thirds to pass them at any time or any point and especially after the civil war if the electoral college and that system was deemed to be somehow biased certainly after the civil war this is something that should have been looked upon and yet i think we only really talk about it when we run into a situation like we do in 2016. >> i had a few comments. >> yes by all means. >> i'll start by taking a crack at the question around particularly how do we explain our system to young people and
registering voters was difficult and often cases it was this feeling that my vote doesn't matter or we would rub into students from pennsylvania or new hampshire. they would say i'm from pennsylvania i must vote there. so an oddity of our system. i think also others have asked what would a campaign, national popular vote campaign look like and we are so fixed on winning state x and y and that red and blue map but if you are talking about getting the most votes in the country it's no longer of particular interest to win. it is of intense interest to run up margins in the states where you're going to win and minimize
losses in the states where you cannot prevail. in 2012 they spent in new hampshire and not any any maine or connecticut ohri ri that would change. that would presumably be some kind of spreading out of the resources throughout new england and in a state like ver montd we tlifr delivered the highest percentage of any state for president obama in his election and re-election. you could not go to democratic headquaters and get it. 80 miles from my house across in new hampshire and deliberately shut out at least 35 to 38 states. in 2004 running up to george w.
bush's re-election the white house and campaign admitted they had been polling for two years in 18 states so that that era 32 states were not even of interest to their opinions. this is how shut out we are. under a popular vote it becomes absolutely about margins everywhere and you would try to minimize places where you have been losing. and by 2% or 20%. you lost the same. if people are worried about recounts you ought to be worried about them today. they are far more prevalent today and a much bigger problem today. prior to this election we had five accounts and therefore called into question results of
our election. and after all if there is ten of us in this room and we vote on something we're far more likely to tie than if there are a thousand of us many this room. when you expand the franchise so that you treat every vote equal out of 130 odd million votes the chances of a very close election go down. we're carving the country up into 51 little pools and as we saw in 2,000 there was a big question of who prevailed in florida in 2000. there was zero question in that election who had the most votes in the country so as we grow the chance of a recount is very diminished. congress does have authority to create uniform rules. states themselves have rules around the recounts but it is a bigger problem. it's a bigger likelihood of
having problems today and it's a bigger irritant under winner take all than national popular vote. if you go the route where states are changing their state laws. to some that's a great advantage if there is some type of unanticipated outcome not of the election itself but of the process well of course it's easier than have we amended the constitution. much easier to change state law back but they would have a hard time saying we have to back away
from the system where someone wins the election and go back to the old winner take all system that's part of the constitution. it creates great deal of stability through state action but to some segment of particularly my conservative colleagues in states they very much favor keeping this power within the states and they like that it's a benefit that people could decide to change their mind back out of a popular vote. >> did you want to say something at this point? >> we look at the three fifths rule if you look back and drill down into the constitutional convention that was part for the house of representatives and direct taxization and it is arguable that along with a great
compromise, the connecticut compromise that set up the hous representatives, without the three-fifths compromise, it was more by extension. because as one of the other panelists pointed out very ackley, late in the conversation, the electoral college was the best they could get. and it was something everyone could agree on. secondly, with another historical reference with respect to representative jackson lee, the hayes-tilden event was arguably one of the great tragedies in american history. if you look at the progress of participation and self-governance by african americans in the south after the civil war, there certainly seemed to have been reached a kind of modus vivendi.
the experts didn't like it, but they worked with the african american office holders. and the hayes-tilden compromise withdrew federal troops who had enforced federal rights from the former states of the former confederacy. and it also essentially gave a blank check to jim crow for another 70 or 80 years. so i think your point is well taken, ma'am. with respect to the mpv, i thought one of the more interesting points made here today was the possibility that the popular vote initiative could be a halfway house, which might ultimately lead to direct popular election through constitutional amendment, which the panelists suggested was probably the ultimately the best goal. another interesting point is the -- i watched over the years with respect to proposed amendments that deal with the electoral college. there has been an increasing interest among members, there
was an increasing interest. mr. green was always very active in this. that would enhance the authority of the united states government through its authority over the times, places and manner of holding elections, and some of the other panelists mentioned this here today as well. it is something that the states might complain about, but on the other hand, if it were to -- if there were to be a federal, greater federal role in the way our elections are administered, conducted and perhaps financed, the states might not be arguably might not be so unhappy with that. and finally, the -- that might also, you would really need, i think this was pointed out by the other panelists, if you are going to have a national recount, you are going to have to have some manner of doing it on a uniform basis across the country. because there are 50 different statutes on the books in the
states right now and it's very difficult to do that. finally, with respect to constitutional amendment for direct popular election, constitutional amendments as was said earlier is difficult to get through. my experience from studying the amendment process is either amendments are either the result of a long building up of public support until it becomes obvious that they're national majority is in favor of it or it can be the result of a catalyzing event, such as with respect to the 25th amendment, the assassination of president kennedy. both of these factors are very helpful. and the third factor is the attention and support of members of congress and the leadership in congress. now, for many years i used to say that if we ever had a so-called misfire, that there would probably be action in congress to push for a constitutional amendment. well, we had one in 2000.
congress did respond. it was through the help america vote act, which i don't think i heard mention here today and that was very useful legislation to provide improved and enhanced federal standards and grants in aid to the states to improve their election administration procedures and particularly their hardware. so there has been work on this in congress and it's a possibility, i can't speculate, that this catalyzing event here that we have seen may lead to further developments. so i just made one comment. >> mr. scott? >> thank you. on this recount, one of the things about a state recount, if you have a recount, you would assume that both sides are going to be well represented. if you have a national recount in each state, you may not, in fact, have both sides well represented and you might have different election laws.
same day registration, if you are running up the vote, the election laws can be extremely helpful, that's why one of the things that you have suggested is there has to be national standards. which would eliminate the voter suppression laws that some states enact. but i would hope that we would get that straight before we go to a popular vote so you wouldn't have some states doing their own recounts, changing their election laws to allow same day registration and everything else, no counting, no certifying results that are absurd on their face and we're faced with having to accept that or i don't know what you would do. but if we had the federal mechanism in place first, then i think you would have something that makes sense. one -- couple of other things. we haven't heard -- i haven't heard any comment about whether
or not running up the score in one state would produce a better president than in the close states trying to get from 49 to 51. which would produce the better candidate, particularly if it's a swing state where you have to get -- you have to cover half the country. you got to get to 270. you could get a popular vote running up the score in a region and holding your own in the rest and, which is actually better. and finally, one of the things that could be helpful in this is if you had a runoff. if you have a bunch of candidates getting 25%, 30%, whether or not you would have a runoff, and would the cutoff be 50% or something lower. any comments? >> on those three questions, first, you are absolutely right,
representative, that we are going to need national standards, not just for the recount, but for the count and in effect for voting, because in an electoral college world, the states actually don't have a particular incentive to make it easy to vote. you get the same number of electoral votes in 1910 whether you let women vote or not, where as in a direct election you double your clout, if you let women vote. so in a direct election world, it is true, and it is a concern and i tried to address it as i thought through the ideas that became the national popular vote interstate compact. you need national over sight, because california might say hey, let's let 17-year-olds vote. and texas says hey, let's let 16-year-old vote. and arkansas says let's let dogs vote. you are going to need -- and
this is a good thing, not a bad thing, to have a national law that you all would draft implementing a national right to vote because the founders didn't have that phrase "right to vote" in the constitution. now now have it five times. and the deep idea that all votes are counted equally and no voter is more valuable than any other voter, whether in a swing state or not swing state or urban or exurban or rural, that deep idea will not be vindicated if you count votes completely but have completely different rules about who can vote and how they can vote. so you're going to need that up-front, whether it's require order not by article -- by the intrastate compact clause. it's what will make the system actually work. and it's to be admired, and other countries do it. as to whether it's better to have candidates who try to rack up votes in their bases or just appeal to swing -- that is
basically the same issue frankly that exists in states. we could just count -- we could say swing counties rather than swing states. do you try to, in california, rack up the vote, you know, in urban areas, or do you try to instead have a different kind of appeal where you might not rack up as many votes there but you will lose fewer votes in anti-urban areas, and my claim is we have many states that are quite diverse and they're dig. and they look like america, whether we call them ohio or pennsylvania or california or texas, and our governors are just fine with one person, one vote, uniform standards. but the system will change if we move to that and we can't fully predict all the changes. what we can say is we can look at governors, i don't think
they're a bad model. and we can look at the rest of the world. because no one else has the electoral college. no state and no international counterpart. and that system seems to work pretty well for those places. >> chairman? >> yes. >> i want to put something in the record. you have been very indulgent with your time and get a quick yes or no. mr. chairman, i said at the beginning i think this has been a rewarding and instructive, constructive and particularly intellectually grounded in the constitution and otherwise hearing. and i believe it is important now that we're on i think our fifth popular vote, if i have the count right, popular vote conflict between electoral college, that we have official, important, and ongoing hearings on the question of presidential elections, which include the electoral college in the house and senate.
can i just get a quick yes or no from each -- >> amen. >> sure. >> you need to be verbal. down to the end? each? >> congressional research service will support congress whatever decision you make. >> i know you will. i forgot your limitations, but thank you forria that. mr. chairman, i have a letter asking for those hearings. thank you. >> you want to put it in the record. >> yes, sir, i would like to do so. that's unanimous consent. i yield back. thank you, gentlemen. >> is there some other comment that we want to hear from before we close down? >> mr. chairman? >> okay. >> i would like to make a very brief comment about the interstate compact and notion of a weigh station. there are two different ways of thinking about a weigh station. one is where you see it, you get it and move to an amendment. my own view is to think of the compact as a way of mobilizing political support for changing the system and that if you got very close
then that could be channeled in for amendment. >> okay. yes, sir? >> mr. chairman, and with regard to representative scott's comment, i understood it, yeah, you made a comment to the effect of, do we end up with a better candidate at the end? well, you look at this particular election cycle starting with 17 republican candidates, and i think we had four democratic candidates. and it's really through that primary process that a party chooses a candidate. of course, it's a party-based process. and so the one thing i would voice is i'm a -- i consider myself a federalist and a constitutionalist and i would be concerned that right now we have a u.s. justice department that can at times be very overreaching when it comes to stamping down the states and not necessarily treating us as
sovereigns when it comes to our election laws and how we have our elections. goodness, if the state of arizona has a policy that disenfranchises individuals or groups based upon any criteria, you know, it's going to make headline news, and we're not going to be able to move forward with that. we're going to be dealt with accordingly. so the last thing i would want to see is the federal government take away more of our sovereignty at the state level to run our business when it comes to elections. that we don't need to be micromanaged. and if there are grievances from individuals or groups because they feel that we're being unfair, then those need to be brought out in the light of day and if we are making mistakes, whether accidentally or on purpose, we need to, you know, correct those mistakes. thank you very much.
>> mr. pearson, did you want to close this down? >> i'd be honored to, sir. >> all right. >> one final comment in regard to representative scott's deep concern about the differentiation between state laws, particularly under national popular vote. this is the system today and we live with those results today. and i would argue they have a very deep impact today. in fact, outsized influence today than they would under national popular vote. surely we would agree florida's use of the chad ballot in 2000 had enormous implications that the rest of the country had to live with. sunday voting in ohio or lack thereof has a major influence on our elections. voter i.d. laws in wisconsin is going to ripple through the future of our country. when we routinely have a system that comes down to 5 to 12 battleground states and we live under the variation of those states' laws, we are going to already see an outsized
influence over the variation in state law. when you lump everybody together, i would argue it minimizes the impact of that variation. >> mr. scott? >> we've had comments that the electoral college doesn't exist anywhere else. actually, it exists in the city of richmond, virginia, where your elected mayor by carrying 5 of 9 wards. >> on that note, i want to thank the panelists for an excellent discussion. there were seven of you initially, but this has worked out well. i also congratulate not only my colleagues but my colleagues who were able to stay with us throughout the entire discussion. ms. lee and mr. scott, i thank you very much for being here today for your contributions.
c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up tuesday, governance study senior fellow from the brookings institution and author elaine kaymark on her book about why presidents succeed and fail. then indianapolis star reporter tony cook and tim alberta of the national review about the role president-elect mike pence will play in the trump administration, and a look back on the indiana governor's work in his home state and his years as a member of congress. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal," beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. tuesday, the american bar association holds an all-day event on the future of health care and legislative policy developments. we'll hear from lawyers, administrators, and blue cross/blue shield representatives.
it starts live at 8:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. also tuesday, a discussion on the world oil outlook with remarks from opec's secretary general. we'll hear about the outlook for medium and long-term oil supply and demand, as well as the current challenges and opportunities for the oil industry. the events hosted by the center for strategic and international studies and it's live at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. and then former house speaker newt gingrich talks about the ongoing trump transition and future administration. he'll look at some of mr. trump's principle, and look back to his time of working with him on the campaign trail. mr. gingrich speaks at the heritage foundation, and it begins live at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. follow the transition of government on c-span as
president-elect trump selects his cabinet, and the republicans and democrats prepare for the next congress, we'll take you to key events as they happen, without interruption. watch live on c-span. watch on demand at c-span.org. or listen on our free c-span radio app. the u.s. council of competitiveness held a day-long forum assessing the impact of new innovations on the economy and workforce. this portion includes a series of discussions on artificial intelligence, partnerships among universities, and technology companies, and encouraging future innovations. this is about two and a half hours. >> thank you very much. it's a great privilege and honor to be here. we have in our panel, some esteemed panelists who are coming from the world of research, collaborative sciences as well as venture capital and businesses. so it is a great pleasure to do
this topic of artificial intelligence at a national level. i think this is the perfect time to conduct this as a national level and i want to thank council, i want to thank debra and all the council leaders for giving us a chance to present artificial intelligence. what i would like to do is for the panelists that are sitting here, roy, and cynthia and daniela, i'd like the mention several facts why this is a tipping point where artificial intelligence is today. the tipping point is you see a lot of people are talking about artificial intelligence as the next internet revolution. it is absolutely the next internet revolution. it's very pervasive. not only that, we're now seeing, according to some of the economists and people from china, for example, they are saying this is the next electricity. this is the next energy. why this is all happening. the level of investments in artificial intelligence has been
really very high. and we're now seeing a huge potential of all of the ai hardware and software reaching approximately $47 billion by 2020. that's a huge step up. we see enormous, enormous opportunities in the area of startups, especially in silicon valley, but in many ecosystems as the panelists can vouch around the world. so far there are over 1500 startups across the world that are leveraging artificial intelligence. that's not a small number. you look at the information, for example, ibm watson back in 2011 was simply focused on basic machine learning, not deep learning. now they have 30 components focusing on deep learning today.
google had only few deep learning initiatives several years ago. but today they have more than 1,000 components in the space. we're seeing business models being changed, totally transforming the industry, totally transforming the world of academia and research. this is now entering a stage where i just came back from g-20 in germany. it is a high topic on digitalization task force focusing on artificial intelligence. because as you know, digitalization alone is providing major impetus, major force for growth around the world. additional 20% of growth in artificial intelligence will probably lead to 1% growth worldwide. that's why it's critically important, and that's why we're having this discussion. so with what i'm mentioning regarding all this information, regarding the internet of things right now, they are basically saying it creates a value of
over 1.9 trillion by the 2020, 2023. the numbers are enormous. we were just few years ago, again, from venture capital perspective playing with only 200, $300 million invested in artificial intelligence. but now today, we're going to close the year of probably close to a billion dollars invested in the space. we have with us the managing director of bloomberg data. but you have cost ventures and other groups, intel capital and others who are heavily, heavily investing. in the next several years, we anticipate investments will be at $5 billion in artificial intelligence. so with everything going on, we're on the cusp of major major revolution. the models are going to shift. let me be a maverick here today. i think some companies won't
exist because they'll be transformed because of what we're seeing. i will pose a question first to you, daniella, what do you see in terms of the perception and are we reaching the point right now where our economic models are going to shift and change and what do you think the future will bring to the united states? >> so it's a privilege and a great honor to be here. thank you for this great question about our research area. i would say this is an extraordinarily exciting time for ai. because a lot of the tools that we as a community are developing are maturing. this is due to great advancements on the hardware side. we've heard about moore's law today but similar exponentials are happening in other aspects, in the quality of sensors, the quality of the motors that we have available to us, in how we communicate. practically everything about the digital space is subjected to
moore's law, to an exponential. in addition to that, as a community, we have made tremendous progress in how we solve problems. and the third reason is the event of data. we now have the ability of collecting enormous amounts of data that help us learn how to do things right. when we cannot write from scratch algorithms that will solve those problems. good hardware, excellent algorithmic support, tremendous amounts of data are all coming together. there is a confluence that enables all these things to come together to deliver things that -- to deliver capabilities that we never even imagined even five years ago. so five years ago, nobody was talking about self-driving cars. today it's inevitable that we will have self-driving cars. all major car manufacturers have announced self-driving car efforts and we really expect this technology will come to
bear and will bring us safety and will bring us more efficiency and lower impact on the environment. these are all tremendously exciting possibilities for the future. >> thank you very much. cynthia, just to follow up on that question, what are you seeing? you heard all the facts. we're hearing media tremendous potential, tremendous growth from the investment to revenue potential in artificial intelligence. what are you seeing in the area of robotics in artificial intelligence? specifically i know that you're also involved and you founded a robotics company as well. give us an impression how you think it will change the business models and impact the united states for tomorrow? >> sure. i would definitely say we're at an inflection point of ai. it's really not just about the technologies that daniella had
talked about or where you commercialize these systems, but when i first started working the field, it was a case where you had large corporations, advanced technologies speech recognition, machine vision. you name it, it would take millions of dollars to develop these technologies. and they would hold them close to the chest and productize their products based on these core technologies. what's been happening more recently on artificial intelligence is those tools and abilities have been opened up into sdks. so now third party developers can start to take these ai techniques and put them into their own products and services. so it's this recombinant service happening in ai starting to happen now. you see many types of devices to exhibit artificial intelligence. that's recent. now we talk about google and microsoft services and watson and all the big companies are
starting to do that. the way that impacts a company like mine, my company called gebo. you would have to build all the intelligence into the machine it and it couldn't really change unless it was from its open learning, but now that it's connected to the cloud, you have this ability continue the upgrade the content, the capabilities to continue to have, adapt new abilities and now as a platform, you are able to much like the iphone, a whole developer community of people now able to create applications for robots where they might not necessarily be the person's skill, but through the tools and technologies, they're able to create, so it's absolutely transforming how robotic products are starting to be able to be commercialized and creating new revenue models. this idea of this iphone platform model is quite new, but you're starting to see a lot of companies adapt that. >> cynthia, thank you. i know my own daughter is very much attached to alexa. the new product that came out of amazon and many of you have seen
the beezus and his team, you were speaking about the relative democraticization of the tools in the space of artificial intelligence, they just released a bunch of tools so many developers and many end users and many research facilities and executives would be able to guide their teams to develop ai applications. amazon web services have done this. intel has done this on the hardware side alone. ibm is working as well, so, right now, the structures, even so we don't have the major models in place, or standards, there's a whole serious of democraticization taking place now and it is obvious some of the major players. roy, thank you so much for joining and bringing the venture capital perspective. you're one of the leading players vest investing in artificial intelligence. over several years, we have seen major players from facebook to google to microsoft to ibm,
really buying out ideas, buying out startups. people who are is visionaries, people who are leaders in the space, there has been over 150 acquisitions, 40 alone this year by the corporate venture community, especially of the companies i mentioned. where do you see this going? what's the end game and where do you see the convergence of venture capital and artificial intelligence? >> well, so we invest on behalf of bloomberg, exclusive in companies that influence the future of work. when we started our fund, we did not mention or think about artificial intelligence. this was three and a half years ago. and six months into starting the fund, one of my partners came to me and said we should start looking at this artificial intelligence thing. at first i dismissed her and said fine, if you want to work on it, be my guest, but it's your time. three for our months later, she
came back and found 2,000 start up, we prefer the term machine intelligence because it conjures up less of the science fiction nightmare. and cynthia and daniela are actually inventing. as an investor, my job is to help them plug the injennings into the power at the end of the day and commercialize it. we play a role that is relatively late in the process, which is to say governments, lorge corporations, academic institutions start the chain of invention. and we're just delivering the last mile. so for venture capitalists to be excited, it means it is almost ready. that said, i still think it's early. we are at an inflection point. the way i think about it is the conversations we're having now about machine intelligence are similar to conversations about the internet in 1997. if you remember that moment when everybody started saying well, what is your internet strategy? what will you do? and they hired people with strange titles like web master. that's the level we're at.
the tools are starting to democratize. the acquisitions have so far been a blip relative to what will happen. and we look at it well, maybe this trend of machine intelligence as otherwise people might be able to do, maybe it's as big as a trend of mobile. well, it seems bigger than that. maybe as the internet. actually, i think it might be as big a trend as all of software today. if you look in the productivity numbers, the last 25 years, it's actually unclear whether technology has had that big an effect on u.s. productivity. and i think that's because we've been waiting for the promise of the kinds of inventions that we'll see now through artificial intelligence. >> roy, just to follow up, again, to the earlier statement i made when i was in berlin, the chinese were saying that they creating thematic funds, which are specifically related to artificial intelligence. one alone has put together over
$200 million fund. this is right across china. investments are very, very important. for us to make sure our start up committee and to make sure we're reinventing our future and keeping our leadership position which i think we should in the united states, what do we do? how do we deal with this? >> i think venture capital is a rounding error. despite doing this for a living. at the end of the process, much more important is government investment and large corporate investment in riskier, longer term fundamental basic research. we receive the end of the pipeline. and it's funny. we've now done this study, three of my partners for three years mapping all the artificial intelligence companies. in the first year we got a bunch of calls from academics saying oh, we've been working on this. thank you for finally seeing it. and in the second year oh, last year i saw what you did and i want to put some money in this thing. this year for the first time, the wave of calls is from the fortune 500. we now have big multinational corporations and not the ones
who had the wherewithal to invent such as google does, et cetera, but every company is saying wait a minute, i need to do something about this. so, if you are part of the large corporation, you should be asking what is our intelligence strategy. note like the late '90s with the internet, many companies will blow billions of dollars on foolish ai investments before we figure out what to do. but we'll probably have to go through that phase. but then i think we have 25 years ahead of us of incredible dividends for the economy and for human beings. >> roy, thank you. i agree. i think we need a very cohesive and very solid ecosystem. you can't have venture capital sticking out. you need corporations and well funded research. especially at the government level to make sure that we main maintain our very competitive position. as you know, the u.s. is very competitive in this space. the next competitive are the nordic areas in sweden and norway and other places.
>> i don't know how competitive is u.s. is. for what it's worth, this is an area where canada was focused on this issue for decades while the u.s. was basically asleep at the switch. china seems more focused on this issue and i think one of the ibs issues we have and where a group like this can be very helpful, as an industry right now, we lack strong hypotheses about where employment growth might come from. we have lots of hypotheses about nick growth, but i think this is a warning call to the u.s., which is not the leader on this issue right now. >> thank you. >> i would just like to jump in to add and say i was in china in shenzhen in august at a meeting where the governor of the province announced $500 million in robotics research at local universities for the province alone. >> wow. >> this is for the guangdong province. let's consider our investment, our national robotics initiative is amazing. it's wonderful. it's at $30 million a year for the whole community and our whole country.
>> you know the amount the u.s. spends annually on ai research? funding basic a ireport? the president released a report, ai should be important. and the number was a billion dollars. it is nothing. we need at least 10 x. >> i agreement. and i think it probably should be some sort of a public/private partnership. we need government, families, all of the institutions. just coming back to you, daniel, regarding your home company slovenia and other places, i was just in slovenia alone. they have invested heavily in a lot of the artificial intelligence research and people. but it's not reaching the markets. how do we bring that talent that right now everybody is looking for talent of specific ai, indeed modeling statistics, how do we bring this talent into the united states to develop market-ready solutions and products. >> so that's a great question.
i would say that we have a lot of talent at the top universities in the united states, but it's not easy for our students who graduate to remain in our country and give back after their training because they do not get a visa. it's difficult for them to get a work visa, so i think we need programs that enable our students to continue to stay here. at the moment, many of the students return to their home countries and they help build the local economies there. so we have to do something about that. >> yeah, thank you. cynthia, we are at a point where industries are being created. they're first movers. we've seen what microsoft, what google, what facebook is doing. can you share with us especially in your experience with robots, but the consumer space. what are the first movers and what business molds are they forming as well as enterprises.
what are you seeing? what is research doing to align and connect with some of those first movers? >> yeah, so before i answer that, i want to also just raise the opportunity of artificial in education. so many of these questions around talent and opportunity. again, we hear this theme quite a lot this morning. artificial intelligence offers a whole new innovative approach to bringing potentially high quality education for everyone through mobile devices which are prolific. and i would say we shouldn't only be thinking k through 12 and beyond. well need to start tapping the problem at early childhood. way too much science is showing that critical neural foundation formed in the first five years, even if you start kindergarten behind, it's very hard to catch up. artificial intelligence in these technologies offers an opportunity to bring the experiences to the home so you can learn at home and not just at school, to augment what teachers do. again, i see this as another area of critical innovation that we really need to take seriously
as a country. now in terms of kind of the leaders in the areas of robotics, i have to say clearly there are a lot of really profound movers in the space depending on the area of robotics. agricultural. medical, transportation, cars and so forth, but i have to say, the united states in terms of these first kind of bold companies still is producing a lot of the most innovative products and the motivative models. even in my own sector of personal robots coming into the home, we did a crowd funding campaign to raise venture capital in that stage, you had to put your idea out there. and there have been so many copycats around the world now trying to do what we're doing. because the idea is out there. again, i think often the innovation is being started in the united states. and what i would like to see is the ability for us to continue to lead and own that rather than being taken over because there is so much more investment happening in other parts of the world. >> cynthia, thank you.
just because we're a little bit short on time and i have a lot of questions. this is a very interesting topic. i'm sure our audience here as well. there's been a lot of talk regarding autonomous enterprises. and what makes enterprise autonomous. some people talk about self-service intelligence networks, neural networks. roy, maybe you could talk about some of the examples and what you're seeing in the autonomous enterprise space. >> sure, i'd like to fund a company that runs itself. it sounds like a good thing. it would also be a good thing. we invest this things that are far mature. they tend to be an immediate way to deliver value to a customer. i'll give you a very tangible example. we invest in a company called textio that takes a job description. before you publish that job description to try to get candidates, it analyzes data about past job descriptions to predict the quantity, quality and gender mix of applicants and lets you edit your job description before you put it
out there to maximize the potential results in the world. the reality is they're using relatively straight forward well understood learning tech next. we invest in a company that uses vision to estimate the size of markets. they can approximate how quickly is the chinese construction market growing by counting the shadows on buildings. we have a lot of these data-driven. fsn and health care are right because of the data set. the question this all raise series what happens to the experience of work and jobs. together with new america, bloomberg has been driving a project called the shift commission to study long-term scenarios for work this the united states. and i think the potential range of outcomes we might, it's easy to picture the self-driving truck. uber just did this that made its first bear delivery. we did a meeting with truck drivers in ohio watching that.
the self-lending officer, the accountant, the total number of jobs to me is really not the issue. because a balloon doesn't pop because of pressure overall. it pops because of a pin and we have many, many different professions across the united states where there is some risk of profound change. so whatever industry you're in, i think there is some ai application that is coming for you very quickly. >> roy, just because we're running a low on time, and i want to get into this area of the darker side of artificial intelligence. i'm an optimist, and i believe that artificial intelligence will create lots of jobs in cybersecurity. we're stepping up on value creation in the united states. we're always looking to solve problems. if we are looking to solve problems and stepping up in value creations, we need to have people who are going to be architects, who ares a threat turners. but i understand gardner and
forster put out a statement that the press is picking up that there is going to be 7% to close to 14% job loss by 2025 in a lot of areas. i know roy you have done a lot of studies with truck drivers and taxi. >> yeah, we have looked at all of the research. when we tend to debate these things, we tend to have a point prediction what will happen and therefore this is what he is we should do. the reality is human beings are terrible at prediction. so really the right way to think about it, we believe and the reason we're doing scenario planning for the future of work is to try to prepare for a wide outcome of scenario. >> roy, i apologize. because of the shortness of time. >> sure. and i just want to jump to daniela for some comments regarding the job loss or opportunities in the space. >> so i see ai as a vector for tremendous positivity. i see ai improving the quality of jobs. in other words, consider any job. it's repetitive and predictable aspect can be done by a machine. and that's not just for truck
drivers and for other jobs that are really obviously in the line of machines. so, i really see a huge opportunity to bring safety, to bring customization and to bring more efficiency and joy. because if you have a machine that does all the routine part of the job that you might not be excited about, you might have more time to focus on what you're interested in. >> thank you very much. and cynthia, just as we're coming to the closure of this session, there has been a lot of talk privately and also through the media discussing the ethics issue of artificial intelligence. you know, they're trying to scare us in fact to say that the ai world could be catastrophic to mankind because they'll become smarter. the machines will become smarter han human beings. right? you heard that discussion and the discussion i had several friends from google and other companies that took it further saying that in 20, 30 years, ray
kurzwell said we're going attach our brains and we will scan all this information almost like what we're doing with the phones. so they're predicting this scary future. but i'm not sure this is the future, because we're talking about applied ai. we're not talking about creating a conscious machine. and i want to get your feedback and your perspective on the ethics issue on where we're going with ai. >> yeah. i think the primary ethics issue around ai is making sure the ai we create truly benefits everyone, not just the few. and i think right now if you look at the applications, they tend to be clustered around certain kind of sectors. and it's not being democratized. one of the big reasons i keep coming back to education, to me that's one of the areas where ai could truly, truly benefit everyone on the planet. i think when we talk about the singlarity, it's all speculation. what we know right now is we can within a very specialized domain, we can create an ai that can be -- perform better than a person.
but people can do many, many, many things. these ais that do one thing, that's all they ealy do do. the new dialogue that is happening in commercial is collaborative aspects. it's ai that works in conjunction and partnership with people so that the human ai team is more proficient, more productive, more successful than either the ai alone or the human alone. and that's where a lot of the energy is going. so i don't see the doom and gloom. i really see us being augmented and able to lead successful, fulfilling lives because of that partnership. but we have to get that partnership right. an that's when you get back to the basic research and the application of that research. >> and government support. >> and government support. >> for economic security for individuals. 100 academics yesterday released this economic security project. i'm one of the signatories to call for exploration of the idea of a universal basic income of every individual getting paid in order simply as a citizen, simply because we think we need some compliment to the uneven
effects of ai on potential employment. >> thank you. and finally, one quick brief answer from each of you. how does ai impact globalization? there has been a lot of discussions of this election about outsourcing. but we are now at a stage where we're leaving automation or going to a complete autonomy. and how does it impact developing countries? how does it further growth of our economy? what is your take, starting from you daniela. >> soy like the idea of customization. i like to think about how we do manufacturing today where someone designs all of our products, and they are manufactured overseas mostly. so now imagine that we replace that process with a customized process where we have customized templates for various products that people could customize and with their personal preferences in their own homes that then get produced in a local factory nearby. and this could impact the u.s. and every other country on the
planet. >> thank you very much. cynthia? >> yeah so, for me in terms of globalization, i really think in terms of the empowerment of teens, but also the empowerment of the individual. ai offers the opportunity for deep personalization and empowerment. so services that we have to go to industries and corporations for, increasingly are going to be able to come at a personal level to the home. whether it's finance, planning, education, health care. i think we're going to see the empowerment of ai for the individual in a whole new way. they think will be a global trend in general. shift industries around that. >> roy? >> i'm sorry to end on this, but i'm not sure i have anything useful to add. i consider myself an expert in the u.s. >> america first. >> what do you mean by that? >> less on globalization and less on trade. >> i would say the first mover thing is wily overrated. we need when these things work to benefit the united states. but i actually don't care who benefits first. >> great.
i think we as american entrepreneurs, american research, american academia should be investing a lot more. because this is a space which could make a difference for the united states and the world. and we've seen today perspectives coming from the top academics in research, as well as practitioners in and financial capital. thank you very much for listening and being a part of the future. i think the next time we meet, i think we may have intelligent agents that will guide us to this meeting, will guide us to lunch, will schedule things for us. wouldn't that be a very cool future for us? and i truly hope that it happens very, very soon. thank you, everybody. [ applause ] . next, in a short series of presentations, leaders from industry and national labs will show exciting, potentially game-changing innovations. ladies and gentlemen, plead welcome the director of pacific
northwest national laboratory, dr. steve ashby. >> good afternoon and congratulations on your 30th anniversary. very happy to be part of this. as we clear that so we hopefully don't have a tripping hazard. as we bring up the first slide, please. talking about the grid, talking about machine intelligence and really bringing those together. what i'd like to talk about is energy. it illuminates our night sky. it warms our homes and powers our economy. and thank you. and the united states, we use a tremendous amount of energy. in fact, about 97 quads of energy each and every year. the department of energy's national laboratory, we're working hard in partnership with academia and industry to continue to develop the
industries that will ensure we have the clean, affordable and reliable energy that we'll need not only today, but into the future. but another part of what we're doing is looking how we can make greater use and better efficient use of the energy we already produce. and that's important because when we look at that 97 quads, we waste about two-thirds of it in terms of waste heat and other inefficiencies. let's put that in perspective. what would this wasted energy do for us? well, it would actually power the rest of our hemisphere forean entire year. alternatively, it would power the entire middle east and africa. so that's a lot of energy that we're wasting. if we can find better ways to be efficient with our use of energy, we can save that energy, save money, and reduce capital outlays for new power plants. so i want to talk a little bit what we're doing at pacific northwest national laboratory in collaboration with many others to increase energy efficiency.
see if we can get it here. there we go. and particularly, i'd like to focus on our electricity usage. we use electricity, as we heard earlier, for a variety of things. here you're seeing a montage of things ranging from lighting, h-cav, the equipment we have in our homes and factory, a whole variety of things use the majority of the injury we produce of that 97 quads. and we have made tremendous progress in improving the efficiency of these individual devices and the pieces of equipment that we use when they're running. the next challenge is can we infuse them with some of that intelligence we just heard about, some of the things we're doing here so that not only more efficient when they run, but they know when to run. and perhaps also they communicate with the smart grid to know to avoid peek low times. and that's what we're doing at
the laboratory. and the invention that we're coming up with here very simple, but it's something that we're calling voltron. can we get that up here? there it is. it's a device smaller than a deck of cards. and it's an innovation we've come up with, really combining some of the technologies we already have today for controlling appliances and technologies, being able to do that from building to campus to regional scale and infusing it with intelligence. so what is this device? it is a combination of the algorithms we just heard about, the real smarts running on a very lightweight computing platform such as raspberry pie and made available through open source. so our partners can download it from the voltron.org site and use it in a variety of applications. in fact, one of the things we're eager to do is to partner with different people to explore the
different ways voltron can be used. we're also partnering with people to adopt this technology. what can it do for us? hopefully can move the slide forward. what we have here is we can use that technology to within your building to control appliances or devices. here we're just showing an hvac unit in a refrigerator display case you might see in your supermarket. and you might control that device, a series of devices within a building, the entire building itself, so you now have a smart building connected to the smart grid and tying into the region. more than that, you can also have it talk to the grid. in a two-way fashion which enables concept call tran active energy. this device helps us do that.
>> that first example here. and what you can see is that in the case of the refrigerator display case, our colleagues at oakridge national laboratory in partnership with emerson ran an experiment, and they show that if you use this, you could actually save a tremendous amount of energy. think about those refrigerated display cases. they have a defrost cycle. currently that cycle runs very consistently. it is very efficient but also runs a lot when it doesn't need to. suppose you had environmental sensors that brought in the data stream that told you when you needed to defrost it so you didn't run that defrost cycle when you needed to. that's what voltron allows you to do, and you can control that. 75% reduction in energy usage. and you widely adopt that throughout the united states, it would be enough power for say 200,000 homes. another example that we did,
pacific northwest national laboratory with a small company, transformative wave in western washington is looked at retrofitting voltron into an existing building's product control line they have and using it for rooftop hvac. there demonstrated in a very simple experiment up to 50% energy savings on that device. not buying a bunch of new hvac equipment. a retrofit of that technology into a product they're already offering. this is the promise of this technology, where you're really infusing what we already have in items of energy technology and i.t. to bring together to make these things really smart. now that's what you're doing, for example, just to control a single device or a piece of equipment. you can also do that throughout entire building and make the building smart. or you can look at what you can do in terms of a campus. and that's what we're doing at pacific northwest national laboratory. here we've installed voltron in
nine different buildings with a number of devices connected to it. and we actually manage this and look at the whole campus now and what we're doing to control our energy usage, optimize it and actually make the laboratory itself a test bed for demonstrating the power of transactive control. here is an example of a control room we can use here where we can monitor all the energy and water usage at the laboratory as part of our efforts for sustainable operations. we look at this going on here. that's what we're doing at the laboratory. in addition to that -- whoops -- we also have partnerships going on with the university of washington. and washington state university. they're using voltron in different ways. for example, university of washington is looking at using it in terms of the incorporation of solar technologies into their campus. washington state in terms of the corporation of large scale
stationary storage as we heard earlier. they're each doing independent study. what we're now getting funding from, the washington state clean energy fund is to bring that together into a single regional demonstration of the power of transactive energy where we can collaboratively manage our loads in realtime in response to signals we're getting from the grid. we're doing that in the northwest. we've now been partnering with colleagues in ohio, the university of toledo and at case western university where they're also looking at this with respect to the incorporation of renewables and stationary storage. and they're doing their own demonstration and are plans in the future to link that to the power of transactive control in a larger scale. and right here in washington, d.c., we've already deployed voltron technologies to eight schools and buildings with plans to go up to over 150 within the next year. so here what you're seeing is taking a very simple idea. a lot of smarts in terms of the
algorithms, infusing that and bringing it together and working with people to understand the type of applications we could have for this technology, and making it available for our partners so they can integrate into it their existing product lines and new product lines. we've already demonstrated the ability to save a huge amount of electricity. in doing so, reduce much of that two-thirds wasted energy, and save consumers and building owners a lot of money in the process. and so what we would like to do here is invite you to join us looking for different ways in which we can exploit the voltron platform, how you can develop those applications for it and make use of it. or if you're a company, the product line talked about how you can incorporate voltron into those product lines so we can have an even bigger impact. it's an important to bring together the kind of environmental sensing we'll have in the future throughout our homes and buildings and exploit that to save money, save energy, and make the future a better place. so thank you so much. [ applause ]
>> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome dr. sujit chun, senior vice president and chief technology officer rockwell automation. >> well, good afternoon. let rockwell automation. >> good afternoon. let me also congratulate the counsel on 30 great years. i appreciate the opportunity to speak here this afternoon. in my ten minutes, i'm going to highlight some of the exciting opportunities in manufacturing. we heard that manufacturing is at an inflexion point for realizing unprecedented productivity from a lot of the technology advances that are occurring around us. so if you look at all of the different technology advances, if i can only advance the slide, so when you look at the different technology advances that are impacting us, everything from
ubiquitous connectivity, machine learning analytics. we heard a lot about some of these technology, just a few minutes ago. regarding artificial intelligence, machinery. well, the excitement in the manufacturing area is around industrial internet of things. you've seen projections that by 2020, there will be 50 billion devices connected to the internet. out of these 50 billion devices, roughly half will be in the industrial space. companies like cisco and mckenzie have put out numbers for the new value that this connectivity is going to generate. and that number is around $15 trillion. just a smidgen less than our national debt. so of these $15 trillion of new value 27% is expected to be in manufacturing. that's the largest segment of the benefits industry from industrial internet of things, so that's pretty exciting. if there really is roughly $4.5
trillion of value to be created from industrial internet of things, how do we go about it? what are some of the impediments? i'm going to talk about not just the opportunities, but what are the areas where more innovation is needed? where more talent is needed and better policies are needed to move forward. let's advance to the next slide. the vision that manufacturing is moving towards, we call it the connected enterprise. basically what the connected enterprise means is bringing together data from your production site, manufacturing sites with your supply chain, from your customer demand inputs, so bringing them together and then optimizing production operations to get the most value from the data integration.
so this is the tim idea behind enterprise. we started with the enterprise roughly about six, seven years ago. we started out by rolling out any rp system, which a lot of companies have done in the past decade. but then it's not just the erp system, but we started transforming the processes. we started working on people, processes and technology and optimize. so a real example, seven or eight years ago, when we promised product to a customer, roughly 82% of the time, we delivered on time. that was not acceptable. 28% of the time we missed the delivery, right. so that was not acceptable. today it is 98% of the time. so when we tell a customer, they're going to have this material, 98% of the time we deliver on time. how do we do that?
well, now, we have full visibility into customer demand. we know what the customers are buying. we produce roughly 300,000 products. so knowing what the customers are buying, knowing where the demand is allows us to produce to demand. it allows us to stock in our distribution center, the products in the highest demand. it also gives the visibility to our sales force to sell products that are immediately available. we call them preferred products. no surprise that we discovered there are 30,000 products we sell 80% of the time. so having the visibility into what's being consumed using that to drive the production processes got us to the 98% number using this concept. as we talk to manufacturing companies and ask them, what do you want from this technology evolution, they come back with four things. they want faster time to market. from a new idea for a product, time to market, they want to
optimize that. they want to reduce cost of production. if you look at energy, electrical energy, roughly half is consumed by industrial operations. a 10% reduction is -- reducing cost is a major driver. the third area that most will tell you is a major issue today is up time. they want to increase their asset up time. you walk into a food and bev type factory, most machines are only up 60 to 70% time, so 30 to 40% of the time, they're under maintenance, may be cleaning place. may be routine updates to the machines that are being made and that impacts productivity in a huge way. the final area that's real important is enterprise risk reduction. building and more safety and security. it's making their environment track and trace. if you have a recall, food or
pharma, they want complete traceability throughout the supply chain. these are the four drivers we're focusing on. a lot of innovations coming out of rock well are helping our customers achieve these four major drivers. so how do we see manufacturing evolving in the future. today, we could say that to some extent manufacturing is modular. and in its own way, it's cure. of course security is never done. we know this is a continuous process. where we're doing in the near future is towards making manufacturing more predictive and optimized. a lot of machine learning, artificial analytics, cloud, mobility, all of these technologies will move manufacturing towards becoming more predictive and optimized.
where we want to go towards, the long-term vision is to make manufacturing self-healing and optimized. that's our long-term vision, probably 10 to 15 years out. but we see a change today. in the past, manufactures were were looking for low cost labor, tax holidays as we heard this morning again from intel. looking for location where is they could put manufacturing where they could benefit from these cost incentives. what are they looking for in the future? they're looking for putting manufacturing where there is technology innovation, technology innovation that will help them solve problems like safety and security, while connecting the manufacturing plant with the i.t. systems. so as you build more connectivity, there's going to be a major security risk. they're looking for good risk
for innovating good risk. they're looking for environment where there's a lot of innovation. they're looking for talent. i don't need to repeat what we heard this morning about talent. there's clearly the change in the talent that's needed in plan plants today. a lot of the jobs where a person would shovel, that's not being done today. we need security experts. we need people who understand how the internet works, that also are living the plant environment, so clearly, there's a change in the skill set needed and we heard enough about education so i'm not going to belabor that point and finally, policies and procedures. we saw a speaker draw this card. if you look at that curve, it's the growth and regulations. we need friendly regulations, we need friendly policies. in the future, that's what manufacturing companies are going to look for.
so my final comment, i would love for the council to continue its leadership of manufacturing. we need public/private partnerships. we need help to get manufacturing to its next evolution and it won't happen without public, private partnership, so thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk this afternoon. [ applause ] >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome mr. adam conn. founder and ceo of aconn semiconductor. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. before i begin, i'd like to thank the council for having me. congratulate them on 30 years. it's a very important time now in text message and maintaining competitiveness, particularly within our field of advanced materials is crucial. i've been looking for ward to this talk for a number of of months. earlier this year, i spoke at the international forum of the
americas in toronto talking about riding the wave of disruptive technologies. it was disconcerting to hear from the u.s.' position in terms of competitiveness was being questioned and so one month ahead of the consumer electronics show, i am so delighted to be able to engage with you and talk about the work. and how acon semiconductor and our partners are not only advancing the innovation technology, but advancing our competitiveness through clean technology, opening up the possibility, a number of captivating markets. i would like to frame my talk with how it's more -- telecom and automotive market, now, the global semiconductor market is a huge market, $350 billion market worldwide. but specific to the united states, it's actually the third
largest contributing to gdp behind automotive. sorry aerospace and pharmaceutical. more importantly, it enables over a trillion dollar global market. within these, three key sub markets are very limited. power devices. things are overheating, power efficiencies are about 90% inefficient. not good. wearable systems. we have these new technologies. augmented reality, virtual reality, very, very important, not only for fun, but military defense capability and sensing in addition to other industries, it's a $40 billion market with a competitive compounded annual growth rate. additionally, the sensor market is key and these are quite limited by the present materials capability. as the logo infers, we specialize in diamond based
semiconductors. diamond has been known to be a efficient material. perhaps the ultimate semiconductor material. diamond can conduct heat five times more efficiently than copper, the current status quo material, but above and beyond that, there's a highest power in addition to numerous other material attributes which makes it very, very favorable for today's electronic, particularly as we're seeing in the new, different types of cell phones, won't mention names that are being either incinerating on power up or being ship damaged, so we know heat is still a major, major issue. and from diamond, we can see not only superior performance, increased energy efficiency, but thinner profile, the next big thing. for me, i think the next big thing is really going to be fully transparent electronics. because diamond is a transparent semiconductor material.
it can be married in with metals and you know have the ability to have fully transparent electronics. and so our earlier work in collaborating with national laboratories as well as other universities like the fabrication facility has been focusing on molecular engineering. actually going to the atomic level. and engineering them to alter the transparency or mechanical properties, so it's been a quite effective demonstration in terms of showing capability of diamond. when we compared to the state of the art silicon market. we see it's not only 1,000 times thinner, but a million times higher. extremely efficient material. this is perhaps five to seven years out. it takes about ten years to bring a ship to market.
if we look at the optical and thermal needs, the systems market. we can bring numerous solutions to much needed problems. within the aerospace market, more efficient. today, we're develop optical windows, more reliable systems which can better detect ballistic signatures, as well as high reliability and efficiency so they can survive battlefield conditions, flight conditions, et cetera. i think for us, nothing speaks more closely to our individual lives than consumer electronics. we all have cell phones. all enjoy using automobiles which connect and won't leave us alone. with a semiconductor, we've been focusing on building a diamond
prairie. this has been a public private partnership. as much as i would like to take credit
from that name, it came from a senator, melinda bush, very instrumental with the village and actually having us relocate and headquarter in gurney, illinois. so not only traditional semiconductor labor, but also engineering the new wave of folks to work on materials in competitive labor and manufacturing. the site is the world's first compatible eight inch diamond semiconductor line. no other line is specifically readily insertable into today's marketplace to be able to address and process other materials and as a part of that signifying this, we actually are the recipients of an incentive package as well as the local
county and city. we're proud to announce this sum summer we brought back key
elements of motorola's razor team to help bolster this technology. our chief operating officer chief technology officer as well as in addition to others down on the design level. after bringing on this talent, we had to do something exciting. right? so, we announced the third party test results of our diamond on glass technology, this brought the question of the world is can diamond actually provide what we need in consumer electronics. can we have scratch resistant display. more outlets picked up the story.
so around 40 to 50 different outlets around the world reported on our third party testing results for diamond on glass and the speculation was going wild. when are we going to see a diamond screen for cell phone? so i actually thought today for this audience, i would bring the world's first diamond glass screen and show you that not only is it here, it's been productized. and when we do something like this, we don't make this for one unit, we make it for 300 million units. so this technology is here today and actually, the next question after this, this is great, something for a diamond screen or wearable screen. it has much higher -- when your phone is to your face, it's much more cool and so, from 800 times
thinner profiles compared to the leading glass competitor, we see over six times harder material. if you checked the paper this is morning, we announced the world's first diamond glass lens. so, when we talk about the prospect of a diamond, is this material ready for market, we're not only seeing it being deployed in today's military technology system, we're see ng the broad, broad spectrum and it's very exciting because this was not only originated in the labs for the united states, especially developed here,
researched to scale, but now brought to pilot production, so i thought this was a very stellar way we could state that innovative science started here. we'll be developed here and we have to bring it to mass scale. we are proud to be doing this in the midwest. please track our efforts under the diamond. thank you. >> our next panel will explore next generation opportunities at the intersection talent, technology, investment and infrastructure. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome mr. jim bosilli, co-founder new institute of thinking and research in motion, mr. mike --
dr. carol l. fult, chancellor at university of north carolina at chapel hill, and miss nia malika henderson, senior political reporter, cnn. >> hi, everybody, thanks for being here. it's great to be here. we want to start the four pillars of course talent, infrastructure, investment and technology. want to start talking about talent first. and i'm going to start with you on this one because this is something you've written about. the idea of learnability, the idea of upscaling. what do you mean by that? and what sort of responsibility do you think employers have in terms of that area?
>> well, you know, part of this day has been encouraging from the aspect of talent. ever since we began our morning with the dr. conn, dr. crow, fred smith, everyone has talked about access to scale talent as being an absolutely necessity for our nation to be competitive. actual fact, it is true not only for the u.s. but true for the developed world because labor markets are being affected by an ageing workforce, and developed countries alike. individuals making different choices based on changes in environments and organizations thinking about organizational agility in a very different way, so, all of this translates into a bifurcation of the workforce. i think it was dr. crow who talked about this this morning.
out of the u.s. workforce, there's 60, 70% that is fully employable that has the right skills and 30% of our workforce and population that is not participating, so, the biggest challenge that is facing us to be competitive is going to make sure that we as a nation have access to a broad pool of skilled workforce and we know today that 30% of the workforce has low or is unskilled or does not have enough skills to participate and be successful in a global competitive environment, so, that will be the defining challenge of our generation to figure this out. because as brand talked about during lunch, if it's a very complex structurally driven global issue, there's not going to be a simple answer. because we've known about this and we've seen indicators of
our performance in terms of skills compared to our global peers as nations, you know, for quite some time. this is not new. but we have not really been able to make the turn. i would argue the current trends, the polarization based on the skills they have to contribute to the growth of organizations and to our economy, is going to accelerate and there's no indication that it's going to you know, mitigate or converge at this point. so, that's what's going to be so important for us to figure out. >> and carol, one of the things that's going on, talks about this bifurcation, in terms of the workforce. one of the things that seems to be going on is decline in investment. federal investment. in terms of science. is that a trend you see reversing? has it stalled? where do you see things now? >> i get to start off with good
news because just two days ago, congress did pass legislation that was going to increase nih. by about 4.8 million for some important targeted areas. 4 billion and another 4 billion on an annual bases and i think for all of us, that is good news and we're excited about it. i think that the needs are greater and the opportunities even greater. and i think that's where we start thinking about how can that investment be understood. can we do a better job making clear that if an investment comes back, people have been arguing that we can make sure that that investment isn't only going to help, it's critical. so i think of it being an investment in the workforce. we can probably talk about that more, but universities are places where in these areas of science, technology, that's where the young people get excited. they get the skill sets. we made a bet in america after world war 2, that if we brought innovators into universities
where they were also teaching young people, we would create the entrepreneurial mind set necessary to stay great. when the money starts drying up, those people have a harder time doing what they do. they tend to retrench and not be as they become more risk adverse. they also tend to become less likely to increase the embrace of lots of different areas, so that talent force changes. the idea force changes. so another piece of good news is that it's related to bad news. last year, nih had 50,000 proposals. i'm a reviewer as are many people many this room. at least 25,000 of them had amazing work in them. if you run a business where you're throwing out 25,000 great ideas every year, you have to start wondering about your business model, but if we start increasing that even a bit, we've got people ready so, if the money comes in, we're not in
a position where we have a desert of ideas, so, it has that. it has the capacity to really fuel economies and i know all my colleagues out there could say they have these study, but a little fuel from the government, for example at chapel hill, we did a big study, for every dollar we get from the federal government, we generate 7 to $9 in additional money that goes to fuel research, back to the economy. we hire 100,000 people in the state. so, i mean, i could go on about that, but i think the good news is that should these investments increase, we're ready, the bad news is that if they don't, these pipelines that are holding on could hit a point where it's going to be a lot harder for them to actually take advantage of what is sitting ready if for us as a nation to use. for competitiveness. >> mike, i want to go to you on this. another pillar. infrastructure. done research in terms of
manufacturing sector and a lot of emphasis on that. coming in, you have specifically done research on vulnerability. in terms of cyber attacks. something i hadn't thought of. can you talk about that? >> sure. my voice, i came down with a cold this morning. >> it's kind of sexy. >> very sexy. >> it's a very interesting dynamic because what we're seeing is we're seeing that right now, innovation is the pillar of growth. i really love what bronze said at lunchtime, around the fact that you must be innovative and carol said about the entrepreneurship, but what we're seeing is what happens clearly is the ability that human error, cybersecurity, becomes an open
issue with innovation. and the conundrum that any company has you don't want to stifle through innovation and you have to keep going. and especially in the manufacturing sector. as things get more complex, using ecosystems, so you can't really secure yourself against human error. it does start number one is tone at the top. i think every organization from the board to the executive needs to have cyber security. supporting innovation, but the word i use is a harmonized way. making sure they're sitting back and looking at cyber security procedures. using ecosystems, television really a balance of how do you push while at the same time watching for cyber threats.
things are getting more complex, more globalized, using ecosys m ecosystems, it is a balance of how do you push for innovation while at the same time watching for cyberrisks. >> i wonder if you could talk about america in relation to where other countries are in terms of investment and infrastructure. we talked about sort of this global economy and this global erase towards innovation. where is this country? >> yeah, thank you, and i think i'm going to build a little bit on what fred smith said this morning. and i think as you try to drive your innovation globally, you have to really assess the ecosystem globally that you're going to participate in because that ecosystem determines the capacity to commercialize your ideas globally.
and over the last 30 plus years. the primary underpinning of the system that we've used is called trips. the trade-related property system. underpinning wto, and what was happening through tpp i'm more interested in tips minus. china says i'm more interested in tips minus. i'm not trying to be pejorative, i'm simplifying a little bit. then you have a administration that's saying i don't like trips plus, is that because it's not trips plus plus, or because trips wasn't right and i wanted to look at something else? so this is an uncertain environment to commercialize in.
there are rival risks. it's -- i find it highly unlikely they're going to come together in the near term. so this is a different situation for commercializing globally in the next decade than we've known in the past 30 years. i study these things a fair bit. one study i engage on i should say, one study this which is very interesting for your chair is in ag tech patents, last year, 92% of all ag tech patents from university research were from china. so they published over a million patents. this is a land grab and stay out of the game until you get enough land and come back in. which is rivalist and mercantilist. so i think i personally --
sorry, i personally believe this is the most pressing issue to globalizing right now because the rules systems are diverging and becoming quite political. ed of what's happening in the election and the royals to the east and to the west. and all of their turbulence and nativisms. so i think this is going to be central to figuring out how we commercialize ideas in the next decade now. >> and, carol, i wonder if you could talk about -- one of the things that the obama administration has tried to do is put a focus on s.t.e.m. education, bringing more women into the field, encouraging girls to go into the field. has that mattered at all? have you seen a difference in terms of conversations around, around that or in terms of interest? >> everyone that is in higher ed
spends a lot of time to think about the disparity gaps, the changing demography or we look at the rooms in higher education at the top. most of us look the same. and many of it look like me and there's fewer that look like a lot of our students. and so we think a lot about bringing them in. i do think even going back to title nine, that's had a big influence in bringing diversity into our infrastructure and our research. a lot of the best examples of the value of diverse research teams actually come from entrepreneurial areas where they talk about, you put six people in a room that all come from the same background, you get the same idea. you put six people with six different ideas. six different backgrounds and you're going to get something that is really dynamic. i think this goes back to me about investment. one of the great ways investment in research -- and i'm talking mostly university research, but it's all research. one of the things it does is it
does give us a chance to also address other societal problems. we use that research to develop a diverse team of young people who start fueling as they move up with ideas like the way obamas did it where you get more and more people. you're going to see the diversity of the ideas and we have a chance. very much to start also reducing those income disparities that go with people thinking that they're limited to disciplines in certain, you know, that women can't do science or students of color can't become engineers. as we erase those boundaries, we start doing immense good not only for the science, the s.t.e.m. that we're doing, but the goal we have to diversify the work force and make the talent pool so much more energetic. i think they go together. >> do you want to jump in? >> not only neigh much more
energetic, i think the business, you know, the clear business case is diversity of thought drives better, better business outcomes. the participation of women, depending on where you are in the world is either lower or significantly lower than that of men, but in almost all of those cases. the level of education for the very same women is higher than it is for men. so if you think about a demographic that is shrinking in all of the developed world, all countries in europe have a shrinking population with one exception, we're just friends. we are holding our own, but within our own country, roughly the same tendencies are occurring depending upon necessity. so our need to bring in skilled talent into the work force is huge and women is actually the biggest untapped pool of skilled talent that is not fully utilized today to varying degrees in developed countries. that's certainly the case. >> and there also seems to be a
turn away from globalism and thinking that america is part of this larger economy in terms of immigration and in terms of bringing talent in. do you -- is that going to affect kind of diversity if there's this shrinking away, jim, from thinking that america -- yeah, is part of this global economy? >> oh, i think there's -- there's without a doubt a talent war, no question, but i think america does exceptionally well because of the quality institutions and the base of their company. so you have a bit of an embarrassment of riches, but of course it can never be good enough. but, you know, how you manifest that, there was a comment from the gallop gentlemen who said there's more business formation and diamondism is going down, so i do think how you manifest all of this into prosperity and productivity, i believe the
gating element is much more infrastructure, personally as dr. folz said, there's a lot of talent out and there not the infrastructure to receive it in her case. so, you know -- i mean that's more in a research thing than in a business formation, but i think it's a pretty good metric. and infrastructure is a very, very important piece to look at. i think they'll build off of things mike talking about the cyber. people are excited about block chain, it's really great because it allows this stuff, but allows people to do things without being tracked. so a lot of these things raise complex issues all along the way. >> yeah, mike. >> one thing when -- the question about s.t.e.m., what we've realized in the business environment is we've been a huge proponent on s.t.e.m. the majority of businesses need science, technology, mathematicians. but we're down into high schools
now. we have to start earlier and earlier. we're talking about programs for freshman in high school. we believe that now, you know, when you're taught internships in sophomore years in college, it's not good enough. we have to start younger. >> we been investing -- that's a big aha. if you speak to the younger generation. people in their 20s who have joined us in the past five, six years. they look at things totally differently than someone my generation looks and they believe you have to start early. you have to start getting those diverse skills, you know, embedded much, much earlier. so we're putting it in program now, looking at as early as freshman and high school now. totally different than when i started. >> yeah. does anybody have questions in the audience? >> yeah, i have maybe something to add to what mike said. when we talked about skill shortages, you know, we survey employers all over the world and also here in the u.s., around their need for talent and
whether they think they can find the talent in labor markets. and what we see today is that 40% of the employers we survey here in the u.s. say they have difficulty finding talent. what's encouraging is that almost 50% of the same employers are now saying that they are investing in training for their work force. where it's the same answer would have been a 20% of employers saying they had a hard time finding people, but only 20% were investing in the development and training. that i think is going to be key -- and it comes back to the question you asked in the very beginning. organizations will have an responsibility and a self-interest in making sure training and development for the work forces that they have. but longer term, we believe that the best predictor of employability may be something we call learnability. the desire and the ability to learn. because we've talked a lot about the changes that are occurring
in markets through changes in globalization and the mechanics and the different forces, and it's going to be very difficult for employers and educational institutions to predict what the skills are going to be 18 years out. they're going to be specifically on the hard skills needed. of course s.t.e.m. skills are always going to be in demand in a digitized world. so the ability to have a work force that is used to acquiring new skills as they go along, will protect us and will render us and make us even more competitive through the time. and we think that's going to be a key driver of employability. we think it can be one of the biggest drivers of competitive advantage if we crack that, we will have a work force that will stay competitive, not only be, you know, in phases competitive and then having to catch up like is the case right now. >> dr. folz. >> one of the ways we talk, we need to develop a whole generation. i love the idea earlier that
competitiveness might be measured at a big metric, but it only builds from a lot of individuals. those are what we used to do the best anywhere. i think that was the real serge in america. if we dry up those pipelines, we really do dry up that inventiveness. so by fuelling it and doing it in such way that would build those partnerships, we actually start every single student and learner has the capacity to be that innovator. that's part of the good news. the investments it takes is actually small. so what is nih's 30 billion -- the health care is 3 trillion. someone said rounding errors. each has the capacity to build these partnerships in ways that can be amazingly
transformational for every single individual. to expand this at the rate and speed we want to. universities have a lot of real estate. we're sharing that with business partners and bring this in. we have this capacity to do it. i think we're at this moment where a little bit, especially. giving the willingness to reach across the sector seems to be at a point it really could escalate. you know, but it needs that intention that i think meetings like this give us when we come together and talk about it. >> and jim, in terms of what you would want to see. in terms of emphasis and investment and moving forward from the terms of partnerships, what do you to want see and what do you expect to see? >> well, i think rco, debora
said it earlier today, that innovation has had unequal distribution elements to it. and so i think you realize when you don't pay attention to that, it rears itself in surprising fashions and everybody's grappling with that. so i think everybody sold this stuff as trickle defense attorney and everybody would get a fair shake and in fact, it didn't work out that way within states and between states. and i think that's a lot of reason why people are pulling back right now and i'm not trying to just say oh, let's just spread everything to everybody, but i think the intention to the investments and distribution are not just -- it's not a justice thing, but you could make it that case. i think it's a functioning society thing. and so, i think that's really, really important. there's no -- there's no end of possible innovation things. you've heard them all. all today and they're very, very
compelling. each and every one of them. i do believe that how this is going to work in the world. you've seen how europe's pulling back. you've seen -- you've seen the rattling with china. you've seen ttp go up and down and people saying come on, bring it back up again. i think -- i think that's going to gate a lot of this good talent and good desire to invest. and i think the administration is going to be overwhelmed with the things they have to do. so i would say distilling these things into clear priorities could be the thing i would think would be the most constructive thing to do in 2017 with this administration. and that's going to be drinking water from a fire hose and try to get it to a manageable way that you can move ahead on it. >> and mike, what's your sense? >> i actually agree with what jim said. i would say that though his perspective is a challenge
between milking innovation and not tieing it to kind of a short term pnl look at it. innovation is long-term. and i think at our firm, i know, where the challenge is the ability to -- innovation isn't a yearly thing. it could take something five, six, ten years. and you have to -- if you get behind something, you have to stick with it. there is opportunities at times the market changes, financial changes. to your point, you have to be able to call something, if it is not going to work, it is not going to work. everything that is innovative doesn't mean it is going to work. sometimes we are very shortsighted.
>> i would love to say something about that. one of the way the universities have a different model is we have to invest in the discovery-based long term. so big example, zika virus. we would be nowhere on zika virus had we not had researchers studying all sorts of things that had nothing to do with zika virus. when it comes up, the 10 individuals across the country who had been working on that is were there. another example, this whole movement towards complete rethinking in transform medicine may have started 30 years ago by someone who was actually looking at viruses and bacteria. it didn't look like anything. but it took 30 years, and sudden isly we are on the cusp of the biggest invention. i'm really glad you said that. we need to make sure that research is wonderful. we can do great things with it. but it all dries up if we don't continue the basic research. i really appreciate that too.
>> what about you in terms of a new administration, encouraging them to focus on what exactly in terms of innovation. >> as we think about the areas that could drive tremendous growth in investments and infrastructure, reduction of regulation, and of course making the labor markets competitive and also ease of growth in terms of companies. their ability to track talent. the key issue is going to be reskilling and upskilling those in the workforce so they can continue to evolve. right now our employment is 4.6%. we can argue about the workforce participation rate, which is lower than the recession. give 2%. regardless of which we are following a number of hallmarks of a tight labor market. certainly slack.
some are under employed. some left the workforce. but the ones that are under employed and that are outside of the workforce probably at this point don't have the skills to actively and easily participate in a lot of the things that strong growth could generate. but i think that's going to be a systemic approach both -- and i know the panel after us is going to talk about education and the need for education in the long term. but certainly in the short-term, to deploy a lot of people to infrastructure projects is going to be challenging. speaking to a number of companies that are involved in big infrastructure projects, their biggest problem is finding infrastructure engineers. that is going to be the reality of hitting into this shortage of talent that can realize so many of those things. my hope and optimism would be a structural and systemic approach around really reskilling the american workforce. a skills revolution is what we
are hoping for. we think that truly can drive our competitiveness to untold heights not only in the short-term but in the medium and certainly the long term. >> any questions out there? there we go. >> hi. i'm from the college of engineer at texas a&m university. i have a question for people who come from industry. as we invest resources in programs to educate engineering undergraduates for innovation and what we call the mind-set of entrepreneur, what are the two things you believe are the most important things in knowledge and skills that we should be focusing on? thank you. >> who wants to the take that? >> we are probably all working
on that same thing. the skills of learning when you have hit a wall, how do you develop the synthesis. >> i would say i think you used the term the inquisitive the mind. what we are looking for now as students is even if you come to a firm like ours and think you know what to do, have the ability to say in two years i may use that skill but do something different. the difference is, coming in, when i joined the firm, you kind of had a career path of 10 years. you knew what you wanted to do in 10 years. now we want the students to almost make two-year commitments. innovation is moving so quickly that we don't want to lock them in for something. we want two year commitments. it's almost this multiyear
commitment to continue learning. >> it is the hard skills and soft skills. access to knowledge is ubiquitous. hard knowledge can be acquired. experience can be leapfrogged because you have access to an understanding at a much more rapid pace today. so this notion of transferability of skills between industries and between various aspects with what you do with an organization is going to be increasingly important. >> jim,you want to jump in? >> you are certain -- you are trying to insert yourself into a value team which all has their own marginal production costs. that is an extraordinary contended exercise.
so people who have these sophisticated s.t.e.m. skills, if they can marry them with the navigational skills which are very different than traditional economy, that's gold. you know people who do that well because they have extraordinarily valuable tech companies. that's the dance you do. anyone who brings those to an organization while they're on the c suite, they are in the c suite quicker than anybody else. >> everybody knows the young generation are the most excited about doing this. i walk down the hall and meet students who started their first company in their first year and already talking about the second, third and fourth companies they're going to start. that is another part of the hopeful part, when we give them the tiniest part, they are ready for that. but i think they want to know what it takes to do that. and they need to have the chance to have a risk fail, risk fail
and be successful. so we've got the material. and the opportunity. so we just have to get those double -- what was it? t squared, i squared. >> on that note, which is very hopeful, we are going to end. and we thank you guys for your questions and your attention. >> thank you. [ applause ] >> to address the nations skills gap and how to better prepare americans to join the 21st century workforce on, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the president of northeastern university, dr. joseph e. ayun and president of northrop grumman, mr. wes bush. >> hello, wes. >> good afternoon, everyone.
and i would like to start by thanking the council of competitiveness because you brought us together. we are old buddies now. we have been doing this for some time. wes was at northeastern university and we had a dialogue. we want to talk about the skills gap. we have tons of surveys to share with you. the surveys are an indication. they don't provide you with a solution. let's start by discussing some of the surveys at the business roundtable has been doing. give us flavor, wes, of what you found out. >> the business roundtable found a survey of its members. not surprising because they are similar to what the chamber had done, as well as other nonbusiness organizations and i would say there are some elements you could predict.
but there are also some interesting insights. some of the more predictable were the number of companies in our case is greater than 80% which cited a significant skill shortage. and their ability to find the talent they need and to support the business objectives they had. and not surprisingly as well, much of that skill shortage goes to the s.t.e.m. disciplines. just about every survey you see, you get that flavor and s.t.e.m. is a big category. we often think of the engineering part of it. but the math and basic science were identified as shortages as well. in addition to the disciplines, though, some of the other feedback that we got in the survey that i thought was particularly insightful was the identification of some broader
sort of general applied skills from a business perspective we all look for and we try and keep track of how well we're doing. things like critical thinking, the ability to tackle a problem and really dive into it and test a lot of different perspectives and come up with innovative and different perspectives. cognitive flexibility was another category we saw identified by many, many businesses. again, i think as a reflection of the pace of change that we have in the business environment, in fact, in the world around us. so it was for me a confirming survey of many other things that i'm seeing in either surveys. but it was insightful in areas that i don't think it quite got the attention. >> we just surveyed the college students nationwide. what we found is that only 14% of the students feel they are ready for the new world. for the ai world, for
intelligence systems, for the tech revolution that they know is going to hit them. you know, they know that the know the jobs are going to be redefined. so it is interesting to compare employers and at the same time the learners. the employers can saying, you know, colleges and universities are not doing a good job. the college students, only 14% feel that they are getting ready for that. starting with you, wes, you have been partnering with universities. we have been partnering with universities. what do you look for in a partnership? >> there's been a model out there a long time that business is utilized and working with universities. i think there has been a broader
awakening that we need to develop very, very different models. the older model was sort of a combination of building good partnerships with the career office because we want to make sure we're there and well and branded well when it comes to the recruiting. but sponsoring research and development was sort of a traditional model. and oftentimes it was just straight old philanthropic giving. which is good. all those things are really good. >> we like it too. >> and it is important we continue to do those things. but we all realized it's just not enough. it is is not solving the problems that we're seeing. and i have to give a lot of credit to the business higher education forum. we are members and have been for some time. a number of years ago, through a series of discussions just like this where we continue to identify these types of problems, we decided to pilot some different approaches and test what would work and what would not work.
and we have found some models and we have applied it now both in the fields of cyber security and in the field of data analytics in a number of university settings around the country. and to your question about what are we looking for, what works? first off, you have to have a partnership approach and it has to work both ways. the university has to be open to engaging in a little bit of a different manner. and business has to be open to changing its model of engagement. what's been working in these new models has been a much deeper level of collaboration. it goes all the way in many cases to the co-development of curriculum. business makes an investment. the university makes an investment. faculty comes together to define what some of the components need to be to better prepare the students. now, this isn't a training program. and i want to be careful about that up front. oftentimes people hear this and
think, okay, we are turning university into training. and that is not the intent at all. it has to be education and it has to be broad education. directly to the point you're raising, regarding feedback from students, we want students not just trained for the one instant thing coming into business. we want them to work for us over a lifetime and continue to grow. that said, there are some basic things they need today to get started that perhaps they did not need some years ago. and this model of engaging more closely around the notion of developing curriculum. how we do internships and co-op. northeastern is from my perspective the world leader in defining how to have co-op programs be most effective. but engaging in the design and development. oh, by the way, business has to step up and work together with the university so that these
things are supportable. none of these things are inexpensive. so it is a little bit of a broader awakening across the business community that we can't simply stand by and conduct our surveys and complain. we need to be engaged and be a part of the solution. is and we look for universities like northeastern that are eager to partner and are eager to help us learn about what works and what doesn't work. because universities like northeastern bring so much to that engagement. >> thank you, wes. when i talk to my colleagues in higher education, it is clearly there is a big unease. we don't want you to come and talk to us about how to shape the curriculum. >> right. >> however, at the same time, when we get together with our employers and we sit down, we have 3,000 employers working with us. it's because we send our students for six months and long-term internships called
co-ops. when we look at the type of person they're looking for, it is clear we have to change the way we are doing it, how we are providing education. what we are hearing from our employees is very simple. we need you to get our learners, our students ready for the new economy. what does it mean? we all know about it. they need to know coding. coding will become like typewriting. >> i guess. >> they need to know beyond the tech literacy. tech analytics. big data. they need to know about human interaction, human literacy. and you are here as leaders. you didn't become leaders because you are great engineers only. >> that does help, by the way, though. >> especially for you, wes. you knew how to motivate people,
how to understand people. that's what we're not doing well enough of. the second aspect that i want to discuss is that i am afraid that we in higher education are giving up an enormous opportunity. we are in the middle of an enormous revolution. there are new jobs that are coming other jobs are becoming obsolete. and people have to retool. people have to define what they do. the notion of lifelong learning is with us. now, higher education looks at lifelong learning as something very peripheral. we don't want to touch it much because we want to focus on the 18 to 22, undergrads. we want to do research and ph.d. but don't talk to me about
lifelong learning. you know, this will bring down the brand. in fact, we are becoming the railway industry. i hope no one here is from amtrak. the railway industry missed the transportation revolution because they defined themselves as being in the railway industry and not the transportation industry. and i think that's what's happening to us in higher education. we are not thinking of ourselves as being in lifelong learning mission. so when i talk to you, wes, i ask you, you have employees. you are recruiting employees. you cannot say to them you is accept once and for all. so what do you look for? you must have extensive training, correct? >> absolutely. >> to have them retool, but i have to tell you, every time a company tells me that they have set up an educational program is
a failure of higher education. >> well, let me say a couple of things. one, most companies don't want to be in the education business. that's not what we do as our primary business. but most of us are. in fact, in the survey that we did in the business roundtable on average across the companies that we surveyed, on average companies were spending $80 million apiece on continuous education, much of which were internal investments because they didn't have these partnerships. they didn't have this capacity to work with the universities on this continuous lifelong training. so we look for universities that have that flexibility to the deal with beyond the 22-year-old age point or ph.d. age point and engage with us in the development of programs that our employees can benefit from. despite what may sound like a
criticism of higher education, let me say up front i want a strong believer in the united states we continue to have the very best higher education system that exists in the world. so what we are talking about here is improving something that's great, but we have to improve it. because our needs for this, whether we're talking about the economic security of our company or the national security of our country we critically depend on the quality of higher education and the engagement of higher education. so these partnerships really are opportunities for us to connect in a deeper way and more meaningful way. and as a real opportunity not just company level. it comes down to the employee level. this means a great deal to employees. >> when we start talking about those partnerships and those opportunities, it led us to rethink our own model.
for instance, when you work with people for are long on experience and short on time, namely professionals already in the field, you cannot tell them come and spend two years with me. no one has the time. so universities have to move into the short what some people call the boot camps. actually, you know what happens, is there are companies that start boot camps in coding. why are they doing that? because there is an enormous need. now the need will be fulfilled. i think we were one of first universities to have done it, because we had to learn, if you want to meet the need, you have to meet it based on the terms of the company or the people who want to learn about that. come here for a certain time. you know, whether you are in the company or whether you are with us, it doesn't matter.
but you don't have time. we're going to provide it around eight weeks. is similarly, you know, we have to device a new curricula. when you have to the sit down and go over curricula, forget about it. that is unacceptable. however, we have to do it because we have to the learn what the needs are. for instance, we have an enormous shortage of our data analytics, cyber security. you and i discussed that. computer science. so can-can we create new pipelines for computer science. we sat down with companies in seattle. amazon and others. and then we took students who finished a b.s. degree and they give them long-term co-ops, those internships. and we gave them a masters in computer science over the period where they are there. they are coming with a background in physics, math, economics.
for us we have to relearn. so a masters in x doesn't require a b.a. in the same field. so it is a learning process. i agree with you, wes. we have the best educational system in the nation. because we have it, we cannot be complacent. >> i think there is another dimension that goes to the heart of the pace of the technology and the pace of business growth that we all expect to see and want to the see as we go forward. and that's around innovation and the way we approach that from an educational perspective. long gone are the days when innovation was the product of single individual. most enterprises today, i think this occurs in universities as well, it is the product of groups of people coming together. one thing that universities have been doing well for some period