they did an investigation involving gambling and local officials and we went up to france on trying to get public information records publicly available and just sort of shoe leather knocking on doors. and it happened that when we finally got the documents, we wasted it. there wasn't a story there. ..

my problem now is, who is a journalist? is every blogger out there a journalist and who's checking their facts then? so. >> the first amendment doesn't specifically protect the press. it does but it also protects the public so someone could go in your courtroom and sit there and tweet as a member of the public, right? you couldn't prevent them from doing that? you could? >> [inaudible]. >> no cell phone or can't bring that in? oh. >> i think you have touched on my first amendment answer, which is that you're a journalist in this country when you say you are. >> yeah. >> a functional definition at least to start out with is much better than a circulation or term of

employment or audience size. if you go to audience size, you've got a website but there is going to be someplaces that don't have them that have been in the news business for 50 years that have a much smaller audience than that chris matthews, bunny slipper person who has a million hits during a week. so at least a functional definition, what are you doing? are you conveying news and information to the public? if you can start there, i would ask you to do that rather than circulation or employer or traditional kinds of coverage. but it is going to produce numbers these days, particularly in high-profile trials. shall we call it a variety of reports. >> and if there's certain limit stations -- limitation on space, for example, if you have a small courtroom, then i think, it is an imperfect solution but you can almost throw the ball over to the media organizations and say you guys come up with a pool

system. you figure it out. we don't like it. we've had to deal with it in a lot of situations. sometimes you have to kind of throw the ball in their court. >> i think the questioner touches on something that's a really fascinating issue because the definition of what's a journalist has changed enormously and continues to change. there was the reaction of traditional media, against the chris matthews pancakes idea. and i think any of the next person who talks about bloggers in their pajamas should probably go to jail. there was a kind of circling of the wagons. >> have a trial. >> you're so old school. i think, we've seen, you know, as the system matures, there are a lot of bloggers who actually do, do reporting and there are a lost them who don't. but it's, there is the whole citizen journalism question. if a person is a citizen but goes to their township

meeting every week, i don't think there are facile answers work anymore. >> i think this is a follow-up. there was some discussion about when you have advocacy group that is clearly an advocacy group. in our state we had a militia group surreptitiously filming in court under your media rules would be allowed to do that. i ask ourselves, does it matter and how can we address that if we're sort of looking at the medium, not the person. saying if you're allowed to be there and anyone else can tweet or broadcast and, then we can't limit you. we can know that you're doing it and require you to get court permission kind of thing just so we know. that is really hard call when so many people out out there doing it. do you have any comment any way we could deal with that? it ended up in a case that is in federal court because they were trying to kill judges. so that is a serious case.

>> that does put a slight spin on it. i think that the if you go back to essentially what the mead was -- media was from colonial period up to the late 1800s. they were highly partisan. they very often reflected only a certain point of view in their ultimate reporting. no pretense of objectivety. i think that's what a free press, free speech/free press, really has in mind. we've gone through a period where there was objectivity and the gatekeepers. it changed in part because there was a mass audience and get to the most people you reported a variety of views because you could get the biggest audience that way. we're seeing another turn in that wheel. you know, i think that again, look to, what's the purpose of it? but really, think about it from the the user's or receiver's standpoint.

surreptitious video, maybe done from a shirt pocket or whatever you can do over the phone, blurry, jumpy and portrayed as we beat the people who didn't want you to see this, versus, it's another view of the courtroom. right from the start you're not providing or slanting, if you will, that report by saying well, come on in. have a seat. maybe rotate people in and out if it is a space issue, whatever it is. if you treat all-comers the same way, it removes that immediate aspect of secrecy or suspicion about the court's motives. >> we have a freedom of information in wisconsin and other states have similar organizations and, you know, our position has always been that we're just citizens and we should have the same right as all the citizens of wisconsin to records, to meetings, to access. and in most cases except

where there's a sensational trial, on limited amount of space, i think that's still the best way to go is that citizens are citizens. >> as they say the transparency is the new objectivity with the internet and so the more open, the better. >> okay. here and then we'll come up there if we could. >> nancy peters. minnesota. to play on the same side with a question. we often times have a high-profile case that is reported very well, very accurately and once a year there's the top winner of the public commenting on the story online. so i calculatety or more comments to be floats to the top and for me it is so discouraging to read what more than half of the comments are because, number one, they missed the main point of the story.

number two, they have got their own agenda that no matter what is written, they're going to spin off on something else. and then the banter is number three. between them. so that's my perspective because we're supposed to be educating the public about the courts. as you are trying to. so what does that do to your work ethic and your development and how you approach the next story? because right from the get-go it was a great story and yet the public is still not really absorbing it the way you would think normal person would. >> online commenting is faux democracy. i know new organizations will not get rid of it. but i think it has very little value. i do come as that as npr ombudsman. i took a lot of grief. but i, the figures are that is about 90% of the public

online reads and moves on and about 9% will occasionally comment and then there's 1% and those are called the online dominators. to me they're the loudest drunk in the bar. so i, just, it is something, i mean i doubt would say he would get rid of it but i just don't think it is worth paying attention to. >> i think it is one of the uglier sides of the era of journalism. and it is sort of a ugly window into human nature. just the level of, the level of comment and sort of personalized response. i have a friend who is a leading national sports writer and she can't bring herself to read comments because the reaction is always personal and attacking her character and her hairstyle and just really the most vicious way and you know, faux democracy is good way to put it. particularly what really

bothers me are anonymous comments. >> right. >> i don't think there is a place for. for years newspapers wouldn't allow letters to the editor unless they were from a real person. i think at very least same kind of standard should be in effect for comments. >> my question is, how valuable are they to a real news organization? >> that's, these are great questions. we have huge debates in our own newsroom about comments and trying to deal with it. it got even worse this spring because wisconsin was such a focus of national opposition that we were getting comment, we were getting stories with over 3, 4,000 comments. you can't even read that many comments let alone police them. >> no, no. >> and it's, we're trying to develop a new system now that combines the best of facebook commenting which has people using their real i.d.s for the most part and allows side conversations and things like that with

our own system where we can take out the bad guys people notify us about. but "the new york times" says, i think 14 people dedicated to, full-time. they have a limit of 2,000 or something, something like that on each story and they still have problems dealing with it. >> sometimes if you wake up on the west coast it is too late to comment on a "new york times" story because it already -- but what i wonder was do you ever get tips? is there news information? because reporters wonder, should they check the comments and should they engage with -- >> we do get tips. >> and npr there is a big issue. >> we also can't go and ask our internet people for their identities and their e-mails because that seems to be an invasion of their privacy. so we have to go back into the comments. hey, e-mail me. >> off-line. >> off-line and talk more about this. they actually, they're obviously a tiny percentage

of most comments. >> is it worth it? why do you do it? >> you know it is really interesting. and it is just starting to change again but we had these debates in the newsroom. we have interns every year and young staffers and i would say until this year everyone under 35 said this is, this is free expression. people have thick skin. if they, you know, who cares about her feelings -- hurt feelings. let it out there. that is the world. people should know what the world is really like. don't worry about it. people don't listen to the loudest drunk in the bar anyway. >> yeah. >> so don't worry about it. this year, people older than 35 were horrified by these things. and i count myself among that group. the, but this year is starting to change. it was really interesting because our intern, i actually think it was last year, they started to split half and half. now half of the young folks coming into the newsroom are starting to think, you know,

this commenting isn't so good after all. maybe we should start dampering it down. >> i think this is growing impact and use of facebook identifiable commentary areas. when balancing anonymous speech and identified speeches of course first amendment venue. we've gotten a number of requests over the years from news organizations or state press associations to talk about this one of the early suggestions set up a reader panel to set your guidelines. don't be perceived as dictatorial editor but invite your readers in say what is it you want to read on your comments? when you cut off a comment because it has this word or this exchange, because not on point that is reader decision. that is manpower intensive. but you have to have somebody reading those. i think very much we're in the transition phase. with facebook and other social media much more identifiable or at least traceable back, that early, you know, sort of affection for anonymity is really the

1 or .5% of the people standing outside the newspaper shouting at the door because they couldn't get a letter into the editor's box. >> there does seem to be momentum in that direction. maybe it is wishful thinking but certainly seems that way. >> and again we're -- >> i think facebook -- >> is a big part of the thing. we're in transition much more so in that area more than anything else in terms of new media. although it is fair to say we're probably nowhere we're going to be five years from now which is my closing question. >> ask five years ago where we were. >> this is john from minnesota. i just want to say that my experience with the judges and court staff who are opposed or cautious about cameras and recording things in the courtrooms, aren't really concerned about the public seeing it. what they're concerned about is preserving the fairness of the process. that is our number one thing. and that's the issue that it turns on.

judges who have become convinced that it is not going to interfear with the judicial process, it is not going to interfere with due process rights of people in the courtroom, will go with it but there is still a lot who think, this is going to interfear in a way that will hurt that person's access to a just decision. so i just wanted to point that out. i have met very few people in the courts who think the public shouldn't be allowed to see them. our courts have always been open to the public. all you have to do is walk in. >> what are they afraid, what way do they think it will interfere? where does the harm come from? >> they fear it will be disruptive of the process as it's going on. they fear it will discourage people from testifying. discourage people from coming forward. i think they have a lot of concerns. business people are afraid that it will somehow expose their business to something. you know, i just, i'm not

necessarily defending it. i'm saying it is almost never about that the public shouldn't see this. it's about what our role is, which is delivering a just resolution to a dispute. >> and my only response or reaction everyone should, if they wish, it really were past that almost point of concern now. it is not longer a case will it be open. it's how it will be open. citizen journalists with bloggers, tweeters, all the rest. the question now is, do you have a mix of credible organizations make it their business or people who are independent, doing their reporting along with a lot of other people who may be misinformed or not have education? or do you just have people outside the courthouse? it is no longer a question of really can close the courtroom. it is a question how do you open it? >> there is a lot of concern about the fear of juror intimidation. that's a big one too. it is hard enough to get people to serve on juries a lot of times without fear

they will be on tv or something. >> see we have i think time for a question or two more. if we still doll? do. >> bret crow from ohio. a lot of us live and work in capital cities and deal with statehouse reporters a bunch. i wonder from the milwaukee journal sentinel's perspective have you invested in your statehouse reporting? in a general sense, not only statehouse reporting in the capitol but nation's capitol. what sort of sense do you see as far as that coverage changing and who is doing the coverage? >> we have got two great reporters in madison, which is down from three at our height. although what we do now is, we move beat reporters to madison to cover the capitol. so, an environmental reporter will cover environmental committees in the legislature around things like that.

and we'll keep moving people back. of course during all the stuff going on this spring we had tons of reporters going in and out all the time. there has been a significant decline over all, and folk haves tracked this, pew and others have done research on this, in statehouses. throughout the country mostly because it used to be when there were, when there were maybe, every state had dozens of family-owned papers and individual companies, a lot of times they would each have their own reporter. they would have a pool reporter working for three or four of them. so there were a lot of reporters in that group. now since so many newspapers are owned by chains they might have one or even none devoted to their state capitol coverage. this is where bloomberg i think has seen an opening and one of the areas where

bloomberg is moving is into state capitols. i think it is mostly been, i think their first impetus was to cover the changes of health care law and what's that going to do to business, small businesses and everybody else because they have been primarily a business news provider. but they're definitely expanding what they're doing in statehouses. and i think that, i think that as long as there are, and this will vary from state to state depending how many news organizations there are but broadcast as long ago, this happen adlong time ago, when you saw it, where broadcast stopped covering the statehouses unless there was big sense stational -- sensational news, people on the streets and trying to get into the capitol and stuff. so the dwindling number is serious. i don't think it is

disasterous yet because i think as long as there are good organizations there and associated press and others the news is still getting out. and i think, i think citizens are helping tip things off and letting the reporters who are still covering it know when stories are coming up. but i think it's a concern for the future. >> we've done a series of census, statehouse reporters going back to 1998. we kind of had a baseline. even when we first did it was anecdotally a big decline. we did it most recently two years ago and found a 20% drop-off in the few years we had just done it. this is with traditional news organizations. kind of as i mentioned before in other areas, you see new outfits in various state capitols. some nonprofit, some for-profit, web-based covering statehouses and george is right about the bloomberg beginning to plunge in. they started in a couple

states and they're now expanding. the ap to its credit, george mentioned this to too has not retreated and they continue to provide a presence. overall the amount of firepower focused on statehouses at a time when they're increasingly important is really discouraging. >> we all have the final word if you want to talk about this. we note we haven't talked much about aggregators, like aol patch which is providing everything from hyperlocal to these kind of specialized areas of focus. that is subject yet for another day. in response to the question here about statehouse coverage? >> i just wanted to add that npr is nothing but a content provider and it provides content to some 900 public radio stations which are all over the country and they have started something called impact on government where they're trying to get two statehouse reporters in every state who would feed the public radio civil.

and so they recognize too that there is a need for that. and what's interesting about the public radio model is that, npr isn't funded by congress. the public radio stations are. yet if they don't have a strong, local news operation, you're not going to donate money to that which this public radio station would then use to buy npr's content. so they're really in trouble in that way. so they have got to do things like cover state and local government to be relevant because pretty soon we'll have internet radio and you will be able to get in the car and if you're driving home now and you live here you might only have one public radio option and have to listen to whatever is on. once you get in the car and listen to all things considered out in l.a. because it works with the time difference here, that's very important and it goes back to what george said. you have to provide something that people can't get somewhere else.

>> one terrific example of public radio i think as a news organization and a platform for information is minnesota public radio. they just do a fantastic job. their internet operation, it is a little hard to navigate but the data on it and the information and the reporting and the citizen reporting that they do is really impressive. >> they're very big on public, what is it called? >> public experts? >> public experts. i can't remember what's that's called. where they reach out and ask. there's a plane crash. does anybody know information on this particular kind of plane? then using that as experts. >> i think we'll go to one more question. we have time for. >> this is hopefully a quick question. i'm jennifer bundy from west virgina. what kind of, a lot of us are in the process setting up facebook pages for our court systems. what kind of content would be useful for you all to have on our facebook pages that would be credible

content for the judicial system to provide for borders that would not involve electronic documents? because a lot of our states do not have e filing of documents. >> if i can respond quickly, to that. i think one of the things about your question, when it's been said earlier, think of it not so much for reporters on the facebook pain but for the public. think about what that citizen across your state, west virgina, whatever state it is, would like to know what is going on in the court in effect today or what, how to creech these courts. some of the things you're doing on a web page, refashion for that. the journalists will go to the face book page and track from there but the wider audience for that facebook page on any given day is going to be the public. >> one thing that lisa said earlier that's really that i foregot to mention in developing those sources, it's more important today than ever before is speed.

you know, it's really what are you guys dealing with today and now people coming to the facebook page for. so you really have to keep it updated. >> quick comment. we'll push the envelope. >> the new jersey facebook page has a couple things that bring people to it because it is interactive and we specifically planned, for example you can pay your traffic ticket online but you have to go through the homepage to find the button that says you can pay your traffic ticket online because we are wanting to force people to the homepage to see what other things are there but we also find that the media indeed relies incredibly and, we have huge sections for pro se litigants. that brings, people representing themselves. that brings citizens to the face book page.

so if you want to get the general public coming to your page, you're absolutely right, make sure to include things that citizens might look for and know that reporters are relying more and more, once you put that out there, supreme court opinions, trial court opinions, rules of court, general announcements, those sorts of things. the press is there every day. >> i think unfortunately we have come to the end of our session. so thank you, and please join me in thanking my panel. [applause] >> as the u.s. senate continues their august recess we are showing you "booktv" in prime time here on c-span2. today, family stories meet national history. at 8:00 p.m. eastern. thomas's conscience. two soldiers, one pacifist and one family. a test of will and faith in world war i. 8:45. carla peterson discusses her

book, black got that many. coming up at 9:50 tonight, ron reagan, discusses my father at 100, a memoir. "booktv" in prime time all this month here on c-span2. coming up in about an hour, c-span will have live coverage of education secretary arne duncan. he is the luncheon speaker at a national conference on school safety. he will discuss the challenges of keeping schools safe under the current state and federal budget constraints. that is live at 1:30 eastern on our companion network, c-span. >> seen as a testing ground for presidential hopefuls, republicans candidates are gathering in iowa for some grassroots politics and state fair festivities the starting thursday, live from des moines we'll interview the candidates and take your phone calls about politics. saturday we'll go to ames, for the iowa straw poll where three of the past five winners gone on to win the iowa caucus and to win the presidency.

on the road to the white house this week on c-span. members of the national association to fat acceptance on monday criticized first lady michelle obama's let's move campaign. they say it wrongly focuses on body size instead of the overall health of children. faafa called for changes to the safe schools does not prohibit bullying based on weight, height, physical appearance. naafa is nonprofit organization founded in 1969. this is 40 minutes. >> thank you for the naafa end bullying now. i'm jason dockery, i'm the co-chair of naafa. i like to introduce other presenters. next to me is peggy howe. our pr director. beside her lisa tealer our program director and far end,

brandon, our special advisory board member. each one of those get up at the podium and give us a few moments presentation as we go through the congress. brief introduction who naafa is. >> naafa is premier size acceptance civil rights organization for people of size. it is a global base of members. really north american organization but we have members from all over. u.s., canada, u.k., europe. abu dhabi and other areas the middle east. we have financial base 600 members which is the for funding et cetera. what we're here today, the safe school improvement acting issued in congress and the house has had a omission and that is one covering protecting children of size. thin or fat children. we believe it is something that needs to be altered to bring bullying into its proper space. next. this is why we exist

♪ ♪ .

♪ . >> as you can see, constant bombardment is a small sampling what people of size endure every day through all media. naafa is message is one of politics and science. one obviously discrimination is wrong against any individual. we're all created equal. the other is health at every size model. major scientific

organizations and leading scientists have much evidence to put our side of it, that is not necessarily a health battle when the civil rights comes in. these two messages together through advocacy and education and support how naafa exists and puts its message across to everyone. as we go forward one of the key things obviously, one in six children are being bullied. 85% of those bullying cases are children of size or with visible handicaps. so a federal law that does not protect those children is a federal law without teeth. that's why we came up with the end bullying now campaign. that video you just saw was put together by members, amateurs to sort of get the message across. we put it out to the kids themselves and they put forward youtube videos of it how they felt discrime anything. we put a campaign and show you what won that for us. great talent. great emotion. great emphasis how it is to be the child that is picked

on. as such, naafa put together the child advocacy tool kit which lisa will be going through to show you. health at every size showing how to deal with the situation after child of size, dealing with bullying issues et cetera. also in your press kits, next slide, you will see a fact sheet with some key statistics about bullying et cetera, which will open your eyes. right now, most states do have an anti-bullying law except for five actually. obviously been effective with the kind of karnage bullying is doing to our youth today. next slide. the main campaign message, equality at every size is naafa is looking for no matter what your age, sex, agenda. with that i hand it over to peggy, our pr director.

>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for joining us today. my name is peggy how well. i'm the -- howell. i'm the public relations director of naafa. i joined naafa in the early '90s but it was 2005 before i became a member of the board of directors. today i'm going to talk a bit how we got here. how and why naafa is addressing the issue of bullying in schools, and why the safe schools improvement act of 2010, s-3739, falls short of protecting all children from bullying. as mentioned earlier, naafa was created in 1969 and the work we were doing was to eliminate discrimination based on body size. until recent years, most of our focus has been on adults with high body weight. but a few years ago naafa began to notice that the focus was turning to

children. that's not to say that there has been any decrease in the discrimination toward adults. in fact, quite the opposite is true. discrimination continues to increase against higher weighted people, against higher-weight people and has only continue to increase and now we are talking about people of all ages. we began to see so-called interventions where children of higher body weight were being taken from their homes, taken from loving parents, and were now being, who were now being accused of abusing their children by feeding them the wrong thing or too much of the wrong thing. naafa become involved and attempted to assist the parents of the children who were literally being kidnapped from their homes by state governmental agencies. these interventions received

huge amounts of publicity but what was not widely publicized is the fact that these same children, for the most part, were very quietly returned to their homes after a few months in foster care, in a controlled environment where they saw no significant change in their weight. naafa members began to consider what might we dot to help the children and the families of these children who were being removed from their homes. we began to hear alarming news of the horrible childhood obesity that was going to result in children dying at a younger age than their parents for the first time in history. dr. william klish of texas children's hospital was the person who made this statement and admits that although he was the originator of this claim,

his claim was not based in any scientific research but rather it was his own intuition who led him to this claim. so now this claim of his based on his intuition alone, not evidence-based, has been repeated over and over and over and over again until it's now accepted as gospel. according to the center for disease control the weight of our nation's children has been stable for ten years. what? wait a minute. aren't we in the midst of a horrible, rapidly increasing obesity epidemic in our children? well not according to the cdc. our, the size of our nation's children has remained the same for the last ten years. what we're told, we have

been told that our children of higher body weight are now suffering more and more from terrible diseases such as type-2 diabetes. well the fact of the matter is type-2 diabetes is still extremely rare in young children. then along came the well-intentioned but somewhat misdirected let's move campaign. led by our own first lady, michelle obama. what i mean by misdirected is that rather than educating and encouraging our nation to create healthy practices for all children, focusing on the health of all our children, children of higher body weight have been singled out and the focus of the campaign is on weight reduction and not on improving children's health. oh, but losing weight always

improves health. well, no, this is not true, not necessarily true. approximately 50% of people who are considered at normal weight are healthy. and 50% of people who are in the overweight category are healthy. so, we conclude from this that low body weight does not equal health and high body weight does not equal disease. why does naafa see this focus on body size as a problem? well first of all, good nutrition and enjoyable movement is good for everybody, regardless of the size of that body. secondly, by focusing on only those children with higher body weight, we

further stigmatize already marginalized group of children. how are they marginalized? studies indicate that children of higher body weight are 65% more likely to be bullied than children of lower body weight. may have my water? excuse me one second. nerves. when our first lady said we have to wipe out childhood obesity in one generation, she essentially gave permission to everyone to condemn the children with higher body weights. how this translates in real life is that these children experience more ridicule, more teasing, more bullying, and the perpetrators feel justified in their actions because after all, the first

lady said these kids have to go. and third, when children of higher body weight hear, we have to wipe out childhood obesity in one generation, for them, those words translate to, we have to eliminate obese children. they hear, your body is bad. they hear, thin equals good. fat equals bad. they hear your body is bad. i believe that was not the intention of the first lady to cause more pain and suffering for these children but i also believe that this is one of the consequences of focusing on reducing body size as opposed to improving health. other consequences include poor body image, body dissatisfaction, low

self-esteem, bullying, disordered eating, depression, lower expectations for future success, and sometimes even suicide. by focusing only on children with higher body weight, let's move also ignores the health of lower-weight children. as i stated earlier, good nutrition and enjoyable movement are good for everybody and just because a child's body is at a lower rate does not indicate that this child practices good eating habits or healthy behaviors. studies have indicated that children don't really truly understand the meaning of health and a good diet until they're around 12 years old. and yet, now today we see children as young as three

and four years of age expressing fear that they are or will become fat. we need to help our children accept and value themselves as well as others. not to be constantly judging based on body size or shape and not to be living in fear of what might actually be normal for them. over the past two years, naafa has worked very closely with research scientists, child advocacy experts, mental health professionals, dieticians and numerous other health care professionals to help us develop the naafa child advocacy tool kit. my colleague lisa tealer will be addressing that tool kit in just a moment and tell you about it and how it can be very well-used.

last year the safe schools improvement act of 2010, s-3739, a bipartisan bill introduced in the senate by senators bob casey and mark kirk, to help prevent bullying in schools. the safe schools improvement act would require schools and districts receiving designated federal funds to accept codes of conduct specifically prohibiting bullying and harrassment, including conduct based on a student's actual or perceived race, color, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, or race, or religion. do you notice there is anyone missing? what about the children of higher body

weight? those who are 65% more likely to be bullied? how about those children who are smaller than the acceptable weight range? how about the extremely tall or very short children? why is physical appearance and body size or weight and height not included? why not protect all of our children from bullying? that's why we're here today. we're here to advocate for children of all sizes. these unintended consequences that i mentioned earlier are why our children need advocates like naafa and we need programs that are health-centered and not weight-centered. unless someone like you, who cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get

better. it's not. dr. seuss. >> thank you, peggy. good morning to the members of the press. naafa supporters, colleagues and guests, thank you for coming. my name is lisa tealer. i'm a naafa board member and director of programs. i also wanted to thank our colleagues and volunteers who helped us put this tool kit together. i wanted to just explain to you how we can use the child advocacy tool kit. in your packets you will find the cd. but it is also available free at our website online. we designed the tool kit to be very flexible. it can be used as an n-tag tool covering very topics such as value of size

diversity and advocacy. it highlights examples of weight prejudice and discrimination. scenarios of at-risk children with discussion questions. how to promote healthy body image and body satisfaction. explaining healthy at every size. also known as hasz. how to become a haze advocate and promote haze programs. there is testimonials from young adults on their experiences. lastly, resources are available with additional information, with websites, articles, books and organizations, on diversity, body image, self-esteem, healthy eating, bullying and exercise and movement. as i mentioned, the tool kit is very flexible. in addition to being used as

an tool it can serve as a reference on specific areas of focus and interest. the child advocacy tool kit kang be utilized by individuals, educators as we know are the most influential people in children's lives beside their parents. therefore, embedding it in curriculum and engaging students in the topic, facilitating discussions and scenarios and accompanying questions is a great start. counselors can speak to kids and students about bullying and body image. coaches interacting with kids embed the haze concepts into that their physical education programs, share with other coaching colleagues and reward body-positive weight-neutral behavior. parents can also be healthy size advocates by teaching their children to be weight neutral and respectful of bodies of all shapes and sizes. even other concerned individuals who care about

children can be empowered to take a specific part of the tool kit. the child advocacy tool kit can be utilized by organizations. school districts can use the tool kit for teacher in service training. serving organizations ymca, boys & girls clubs can provide awareness and training to administrators, staff, counselors and youth leaders insuring children of all sizes are included and engaged. school wellness policy committees can use the tool kit to help develop and implement wellness policy in schools that incorporate health at every size. parent groups, ptas, and other similar organizations can make recommendations to schools, provide sessions to parents, on how to be a haas advocate. ideally it take as village approach to this issue

especially with respect to bulllying. parents, educators and counselors, school districts, youth-serving organizations and the community as a whole could hospital and incorporate the concepts, the project descriptions from the tool kit as a comprehensive plan to build a health-centered bully-free environment for our children. naafa looks forward to hearing from individuals and organizations that are utilizing the tool kit on how they have developed other ideas, initiatives and projects as a result of utilizing the tool kit. again, thank you for your time. >> good morning. my name is brandon. i'm the managing partner of the makasada group and i

serve as advisory board member for naafa. for a little over a year now i believe. you might ask why am i standing here when you look at me cared to my colleagues to the left? it is pretty simple. because words matter. and whether you want to use progressive terminology of fat, the politically correct terminology of people of size, or the culturally insensitive language of obese, these words matter and it demonstrates how we often times over look the fact we're all people. i'm obviously not a person of size. i might be what is characterized as what is called a gym rat but i've seen what our nation's addiction has done on dieting, not obesity. we don't have an obesity epidemic in this country. we have a dieting epidemic. we focus on the person's

size and yet we overlook the fact that there is an epidemic going on in this country with eating disorders. as an openly gay man living with hiv/aids i can tell you a thing or two about discrimination, harrassment, and hatred. and i can tell you within the gay community there is a serious problem when it comes time to eating disorders because gay men are obsessed with how their bodies look. sometimes they will go entire weekends without eating. where is that in mrs. obama's let's move campaign? these three words, discrimination, harrassment and hatred all lead to bullying. i was asked to speak about the safe schools improvement act and for our press in the room, a slight correction to something peggy mentioned. the senate bill is actually 506. she was referencing last

year's legislation. it was reintroduced this year. so i just want to make sure you have that information. peggy, i didn't realize we were using the wrong number until this morning as i was coming over here. so we'll have a tongue lash all of us later, i guess right? why is this important? why do we need federal legislation? jason hit the nail on the head a little earlier. all but five states have bullying legislation at the state level. except for montana, north dakota, south dakota, michigan and hawaii. so obviously the state laws are not working. and some people may question why do we need federal legislation in education? since education is indeed a, enumerated under our constitution as a states issue? obviously discrimination, hatred and violence have always been protected at the federal level. that's exactly what we see this law doing, is prohibiting those activities. that is why we feel it is necessary.

the safe schools improvement act, the purpose of this is to address the problem of bullying and harrassment of students in public elementary schools and secondary schools. and i want to just piggyback what peggy said and enumerate the classes of protection outlined in the legislation. race, color, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion. and if fat children, children of size, obese children, are being bullied two to three times more than their counterparts, why in god's name would they not be included in this? there is language in the legislation says any other distinguishing characteristic that may be defined by a state or local educational agency. well i come back to, if you're going to take the time and enumerate all of

these classes, why would you not include the one class of children that are, you know, receiving the brunt of this bullying that is ongoing? you know, when i, i woos the one who put together the video you saw at the beginning of this press conference. i do a lot of media relations work and the idea came into my head because i thought back to a ad by kellogg's book in 1998. and the ad advertisement was basically saying if your kid is fat and being bullied, eat kellogg's, you will lose weight and you will solve the problem. what kind message did that send back in 1998? well, ironically the advertising standards authority determined that the ad was in poor taste and kellogg's took the ad down. but that is the type of messaging that feeds what you saw at the beginning of this press conference.

my good friend here jason is from canada. and he was asking before this press conference, is it appropriate for me to speak at this press conference being we're talking about u.s. legislation before congress? i said absolutely because don't the canadians and don't other countries around the world look to the united states to be a leader on issues like this? he said absolutely. i said you should be here because on size discrimination we're actually behind the curveball on this one. canada is ahead of the curve on this one. and there was a study done of 5749 canadian youngsters in which they gauged or graded their quality of life and it came out equal to a cancer patient. not because of their size. not because of their weight. because of the treatment they endured because of their size, and their weight. i think that is pretty telling. in closing, you know, michelle obama, while her intentions are all good, and

there's a lot of, let's move campaign that are supported by me, by naafa, including the focus on healthy nutrition, you know, one of the things she said was that children of size could expect lower expectations for future suck. mrs. obama, obviously has not met jason, peggy howell, and lisa tealer, these of the most successful people i know. i will leave you with naafa's tag line, understand, it, support it, accept it. thank you. >> thank you, brandon. and to wrap up, we as i mention at the beginning of conference put a call out to all the youth to give us their version of discrimination. and we had quite a few submissions. we have our winner here that we'll let you see it now. get it up here for you.

>> fat, lazy, porker, loser. those are just a few of the names i used to get called. it was my first year of high school when i was bullied because of my weight. it was bad enough feeling uncomfortable in my own skin and frequently depressed but to be criticized on top of it only made me feel worse about my elf is. i was just one of many people who have suffered. over the past decade weight discrimination in adults has increased by almost 10% and not enough is being done to prevent it. in today's society, being thin is aspiration while being overweight is associated with failure. time to take a stand against the weight discrimination in america and say, don't bully me because of my size. ♪ . >> thank you all. time for questions?

>> has mrs. obama responded? >> she has never responded to -- [inaudible] >> use the microphone. >> the question was, has mrs. obama responded to naafa's message? we have sent numerous messages and challenges in the past couple of years to her. have no idea whether or not she has actually received them. and we have not received any kind of response whatsoever to our message of, please, don't continue to stigmatize the fat children. any other questions? . .

>> we're not a health organization. we're not scientists or doctors. or health care providers. we're civil rights organizations. and we want you to accept the fact that in spite of our body size, we are citizens of the united states. and nothing -- nothing should reduce our civil rights. nothing justifies our civil rights. fat individuals are being discriminated against on a daily basis. we're discriminated in employment situations, often not

hired because of our body size. in health care situations, very often told by physicians that if we lost weight, our allergies would go away. and other such ridiculous things as that. and often in our own homes, by our well-intended family members or friends or neighbors who feel that they are justified in making our bodies an object of their personal opinion and expression. i'm sorry. but my body is not public property. it does not give anyone the right to comment because that i body is larger than theirs. brandon would also like to address this question. to answer your question, there's

a lot of work with regard to employment work. there's a large dichotomy here. if somebody wants to go in the military, police department, flight attendant, whatever the job is, you just arbitrarily deny somebody based on weight, height, wrong. now, if there are standards that is you have to be able to lift 50 pounds, you have be able to run a 5-2, you have to be able -- you know, whatever. that's different. 'cause i can assure you of people of size who can meet those standards, okay? but at least give he or she the opportunity to succeed rather than saying you automatically fail because you don't meet this cookie cutter height/weight requirement. it doesn't matter going to work for the military or macy's or a pharmaceutical company or anything, you know, of that nature. yes.

>> what, if any, outreach have been done on offices that have been done to include height and weight. >> some of those people you see will be going to the capitol hill after this press conference with members of their senators and the ho us. >> also in response to actions that have been taken earlier this year. nasa sent out a call to action which you'll find in your press kit asking our members as well as other concerned and sympathetic members of the community to write to each of the committee members and address this issue adding height and weight and physical appearance to the law. we have received some response. i wrote to every single one of them personally and have received responses from some of them expressing their appreciation for our bringing that to their attention.

any other questions? yes, sir. [inaudible] >> the same sponsors in that legislation? [inaudible] >> yes, sir. >> i wonder if we could hear a little bit more about what other countries have done to address this issue. >> would you like to see that? >> i have something here and just kind of watched media europe, france, u.k. and canada itself bring it up. it's, obviously, an issue that covers a lot of different issues with criminal codes, civil rights codes, et cetera. each is approached differently. some have mandated that schools themselves deal with the bullying. others have sort of elevated up into something more of a, you know -- depending on what country you're from, obviously, at the provincial level on that part. but it seems to me those haven't

been given the results and it seems to be moving around including candidates who have a federal law that gives bullying, you know, criminal offense standards and cover not just specifically. as i said the ones here are usually more broader in size based on the number of people who are bullied with that situatio situation. >> questions? >> are copies of your research available? >> yes. >> email address. >> here's a quick look at what's coming up here on c-span2. a few moments, a house hearing looking at how the 2010 health care law affects small businesses and then a panel of latino officials look at voting trends, census, redistricting and the 2012 elections. and after the center for american progress will host a discussion on the african-american vote in the 2012 election.

u.s. senate continues their august recess and in its place we're showing you booktv in prime time here on c-span2. today, family stories meet national history at 8:00 pm eastern, louisa thomas in conference. >> the house small business heard views on the 2012 health care law. that hearing focuses on issues such as tax credits to help employerers pay health insurance where businesses could pool their resources and small business perceptions of the law so far.

this is about an hour and a halhalf >> all right. we're going to go ahead and get started. good morning to everyone. and i call the hearing to order. i want to thank the witnesses on both panels. he will have two panels today who are testifying and we certainly appreciate their attendance and participation in this important subcommittee hearing. although the health care law won't be fully implemented until 2014 businesses are already feeling the effects. a study released this week by the national federation of independent businesses found that small firms are worried that the law could lead to higher taxes, more administrative burdens and bigger budget deficits. without lowering costs or making americans healthier. under the law, many small

business owners will be required to offer coverage to their employees or pay a penalty. and the small business tax credit that has been touted to offset the cost of health insurance is in reality a temporary and a narrow one where the full credit employees only to the smallest of businesses. if your firm has more than 25 employees, you are 1 of the 23 million self-employed, you qualify for no credit, whatsoever. we have heard small businesses are concerned that regulatory requirements on insurers such as the medical loss ratio may drive some carriers out of the market, resulting in fewer options and premium hikes. small firms are uncertain about whether they will be able to continue offering coverage. if so, at what cost? and if not what their penalties will be and what the costs will

cost taxpayers. this is all while our economy is still very fragile, an economy that is adding fewer jobs than forecast and still has an high unemployment rate. in this environment it's not surprising that small business owners continue to be hesitant to create jobs, expand or invest and there are more regulations ahead. during the health care debate, one of the most repeated assurances was that if you like your current health care coverage, you would be able to keep it. however, for a number of reasons, a small business may be driven out of its current plan. the department of health and human services predicts that over half of all employers and up to 80% of small firms may relinquish grandfather status by 2013. this means that small business owners and workers may be forced to switch to a higher-priced plan or drop insurance all

together. although the goal of health care -- although the goal of the health care law may have been to make health care insurance more accessible, its taxes mandates regulations and administrative burdens are causing many small businesses, our best job creators, to postpone hiring and expanding. again, i thank the witnesses who are here with us today for participating. i look forward to hearing their input on how we can help to reduce the impact of some of the health care laws uncertainty, mandates, regulations and requirements for our small businesses. i now yield to ranking member richmond for his opening statements. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. thank you for you. today's hearing will focus on the health insurance landscape for small businesses since the passage of the health care bill. currently, employers are the principal source of health insurance in the united states providing benefits for more than 158 million people.

given the role of business and providing insurance two questions have been raised about the affordable care act. first, would small firms be able to keep existing health plans and how will the affordable care act affect small firms ease decision to offer coverage? these are the questions we will address today. small businesses face numerous challenges when choosing a health plan. this includes making tough choices about coverage benefits, which physician should be part of the insurer's network and what co-pays should apply to services? yet, with all these challenges, costs remain the greatest barrier to coverage. according to one report, over the last decade, health insurance premiums have increased 113%. the affordable care act was enacted to lower costs and create more quality health care choices. still, the legislation has not been without its critics. some have argued that small firms will not only lose their ability to keep their plan but most will drop coverage all

together. we will hear from the administration and witnesses on both of these issues. one on the matter of retaining current health plans. the regulations outlining how firms could maintain so-called grandfather status. the regulation provides latitude for firms to make changes because of rising prices. it also clarifies for firms what they need to do to keep their plan despite aca changes. while protecting small businesses ability to retain plans is important. the reality is many firms will make changes. historically, small firms change plans due to rising prices are different benefits. now, small firms will be afforded better service and choice when choosing a new plan. the affordable care act not only creates new incentives but maintains laws that encourage employers to purchase insurance, most notably the employer provided benefits remain tax-free and the employers can

pay premiums on a pretax basis and since 2010 small firms have been eligible for a new health insurance tax credit. one of my constituents miss verna williams owner of nolla health care llc provides a great example of how firms are using this successfully. she owns a private health clinic in new orleans and was able to avail herself of the new tax credits now all 12 of her employees have health care coverage and she said she was very pleased with the new health care legislation and its benefits for her employees. in addition to the incentives, insurance reforms are already on the books that benefit new firms. no longer can insurance companies discriminate based on preexisting conditions or raise premiums without adequate justification. again, starting in 2014, private health insurance exchanges will create a virtual market for buying insurance. exchanges will provide another option and enhance competition. something lacking in the small group market. with all these changes -- what

will all these changes mean for small businesses? one study predicted that employer-sponsored insurers could shrink by 20%. however, others such as those by the rand corporation and the robert wood johnson would increase coverage. this is an opportunity to discuss the affordable care act and its implementation. ensuring that small firms can keep their plan while making coverage more affordable is critical. i want to thank director lausen and the witnesses to take time out of their busy schedules today. i look forward from hearing from all y'all and with that i yield back. >> thank you, mr. richmond. and as you can see, some of our other committee members have not arrived yet but i will state for the record that if they have any opening statements they can submit that for the record. i'd like take a moment just to explain the timing lights. you will each -- you will have five minutes to deliver your testimony. the lights will start out as

green. when you have 1 minute remaining the light will turn yellow. finally, it will turn red at the end of your 5 minutes and i ask you to try to adhere to your 5-minute time limit and you have the button there to push, to speak into the microphone. our first witness is mr. steve larsen who is director of the centers for consumer information, an insurance oversight or the cchio with the centers for medicare and medicaid services. prior to his current position, mr. larsen served as director of the division of insurance oversight at cchio. welcome, mr. larsen. you will have 5 minutes to present your testimony. thank you. >> good morning, chairwoman ellmers, ranking member majors and members of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to discuss how the affordable care act is improving the affordibility, accessibility and the quality of health insurance

available to small businesses and their employees. providing and maintaining health insurance coverage for employees has been a challenge for small businesses for many years. states have struggled for decades, really, to improve their small group health insurance market, and i know this from my many years of experiences, insurance commissioner in the state of maryland. small businesses pay significantly more than large firms for the same health insurance policy. some estimates put that at about 18% more. there are a number of reasons for this. small businesses lack the purchasing power that large employers have. administrative costs for insurers in handling small businesses are much higher than for large businesses. small businesses often don't have the home runs staff to navigate the difficult process between choosing between health plans. prices for insurance for small businesses can be more volatile due to the smaller risk pool compared to large businesses. and employees in small businesses are subject to medical writing in many -- medical underwriting in many

states and so this means that the rates that small businesses are charged can spike if just a single employee becomes very ill. the affordable care act addresses these challenges in the market and helps close the gap between small and large businesses' ability to offer health insurance to their employees. first starting in 2014 small businesses will be able to reduce administrative costs and pool their buying power by purchasing insurance through the exchanges. the exchanges are state-based, competitive marketplaces providing private health insurance. small businesses will be able to buy health insurance through a part of the exchange called the shop. shops will give small businesses and their employees many of the advantages of large employers -- that large employers have today which are more choice, more competition and more clout in the marketplace. these shop exchanges are a one stop shop where small businesses and their employees will be able to easily compare health plans,

get answers to questions and then enroll in high quality health plans that meet their needs. health plans that participate in the state exchanges will compete for business on the basis of price and quality. and this type of market competition has the power to drive improvement in both planned quality and affordibility. we recently issued draft regulations which will provide states the flexibility to provide small employers with a range of option on how the employers offer coverage to their employees. for example, a small business participating in the shop exchange may choose a level of coverage and a level of contribution toward that coverage and then employees will then choose among the health plans available on the exchange within that level of coverage offered by their employer. or employers may provide their employees a broader range of options such as shopping for any level of coverage among competing health plans. under the proposed regulations, the employer would write a

single check to the shop reducing administrative burden. the shop is a premium aggregator would handle the administrative functions that would burden the small business owner. shops will simplify the employee decision-making process for providing side-by-side comparisons of health plans benefits, premiums and cost-sharing. not only will the affordable care act benefit small employers by enabling them to pool their buying power it would affect them by spikes caused by an employee's illness. beginning in 2014, the aca prohibits new health plans from rating on the basis of health status or claims history. in addition, the law limits how much insurers can increase rates based on employees' ages. these new rating limitations will help make small businesses health insurance rates fairer, more predictable, and easier to understand. in addition, limits on health plans medical loss ratios will also save small businesses money as insurers that failed to meet

the mlr standard will provide rebates. finally, the law established a small business tax credit that's making health coverage more affordable for small businesses. the tax credit is designed to encourage both small businesses and tax-exempt organizations to offer health insurance coverage to their employees for the first time or to maintain coverage that they already offer. small businesses are already benefiting from the affordable care act and those benefits will expand dramatically as the aca continues to take effect. thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the affordable care act's critical provisions to support small businesses' ability to offer health insurance to their employees. >> thank you, mr. larsen. and i'll begin the questioning. generally, grandfathering should allow you to keep the coverage you had when the health reform law was enacted, with some

exceptions. the june 2010 and the rules on grandfathering list several changes that disqualify a plan from being grandfathered. the rules seem to be -- the rules seem to leave open whether other changes will be disqualified and leave open the possibility of additional administrative guidance. to explain how plans must comply to continue to be grandfathered, i'm wondering how can small businesses count on grandfathering if the guidance is vague and the rules may change as we go along? >> sure. well, as you point out, we put out the initial interim final rule last summer what laid out broad categories in which small businesses and health insurers have flexibility alter some provisions of their health coverage but not so much that it really changes the fundamental nature of the coverage. we received and have reviewed

various comments on many aspects of that regulation. we did, in fact, amend the interim final role to provide actually more flexibility to businesses and small businesses to maintain their existing coverage by allowing them to, for example, switch carriers if they wanted to switch carriers if they thought they could get a better deal. so, in fact, although we have amended the initial guidance that we put out last summer, we've done so in a way that really provides more flexibility to small businesses into the health insurance issuers for their providers. >> i have another question for you. small businesses are concerned about the possible mandates in the health care laws minimum essential benefits package. because many new services, treatments are likely to be required, the cost of premium is also likely to increase. what can you tell us about the institute of medicine's forthcoming recommendations on

the essential benefits package? >> well, i can't tell you much about what they're going to say. we haven't received the recommendation but if i can just summarize the process that we will follow and i would add that we're -- i think like you very aware and tuned into the need to make sure that the package of essential health benefits is an affordable package. there's kind of a multi-step process that we're following at hhs. the first step was that the department of labor performed a survey of employers to gauge what were the typical benefits that are offered in employer-sponsored coverage today? and we've got that survey. that's been published. the secretary also, as you point out, did ask the institutes of medicine to recommend to us methodology or ways to think about how we should define the package of essential health benefits but i do want to be clear because i know there's been some confusion on this.

the i.o.m. is not the body that will be charged with defining what that list is. that's left to the h.h.s. and we will do that. and i think we've announced previously that our objective is to have that guidance out sometime this fall. we know there's a lot of interest in that. and welcome the states and among businesses and insurers so we're hoping to get that guidance out that fall. >> so basically you do anticipate that there will be a additional administrative guidance on the grandfathering -- >> well, on the essential health benefits, yes. on the grandfathering, i can't speak to that, at this point. i don't think we're anticipating anything but we continue to review these and as they need to be tweaked and improved, if that need arose, then we would look at that as an opportunity. >> okay. i now yield to congressman altmire for questions. >> economists like dr. holtz-eakin whom we're going

to hear from shortly have predicted the employer mandate would lead to dramatic declines in employer sponsored coverage, as you well know. will most small firms drop their coverage or simply pay the penalty? and what do you expect they will -- they'll continue providing health care to their workers? what do you expect the outcome will be? >> we do expect small employers to continue to offer employer-based coverage. it's really a cornerstone of our economic system of our employer-based insurance system. if you look at a number -- and i know there are a number of different studies out there, but if you look, for example, the rand analysis or the urban institute, there are -- those two, for example, i think predicted significant increases in the offer rate. not decreases but increases. for example, rand predicted that you would see an increase for very small businesses i think, for example, less than 9 or less

employees from about 50% today to about 70% in the future under the aca. and the numbers were similar for the urban institute. >> regarding the medical loss ratio in particular, as you know, the aca requires insurance companies to spend at least 80% of their premiums they collect on medical care, what will this change mean for small firms? and how will it affect the cost of coverage in your view? >> the medical loss ratio provision of the aca is a very important and helpful provision for small businesses and to individuals because it applies to individual purchasers individuals as well. by assuring that issuers are not spending an inordinate amounts of administrative expenses, so it drives efficiency in the issuers for the insurance company and that creates value for the premium dollars that small businesses are paying. >> now, the companies would

argue that it doesn't just drive efficiency. they might dispute that on its face but they also would say that it's going to drive small humpers out of t -- small insur companies out of the market? >> i hasten to add that the affordable care act specifically provides states and the secretary with the flexibility to address at least in the individual market the medical loss ratio provisions. in the small group market, in fact, many states already had in place medical loss ratio targets. i think there were around 10 that already had an 80%. there were a handful that had less than that so that was already present in the marketplace and many insurers were already used to pricing to an 80% level. >> do you foresee cms and given authority under the law?

are you going to -- >> well, i mean, when we get to the exchanges in 2014, competition is kind of the cornerstone of what we're trying to accomplish in the exchanges. and we will be working actively with the states as they set up their state exchanges and to the extent that we're operating a federally facilitated exchange we will do everything we can to make sure that there's competition among insurers. the exchanges are among competition among private carriers for the benefit of small businesses and individuals. >> and last question, madam chair, since 2010, eligible small firms have had the ability to obtain a health care tax credit and according to the nfib, information provided to this committee, 1.1 million small businesses are eligible for either a partial or full credit. while i realize the irs administers the credit does cms have an estimate. estimate for employers taking advantage of the credit and how it's lowering their costs? >> i know there's varying

estimates of the variability rate and the uptake rate. we're currently working with our colleagues over at treasury and irs to get an estimate of what that is. i apologize i don't have it for you here today but we hope to get that soon. >> great, thank you. >> thank you. i have a couple more questions for you, mr. larsen. small business owners have told us the new law and its regulations are vague and we mentioned that already. and they don't know what is required of them. for example, many aren't sure if the employer mandate applies and if they have employers who are working 30 hours a week or less. if they currently offer insurance to the individual employee, they aren't certain if the new law requires them to also cover the employee's family. how are the small business employers who have -- who don't have the benefit to large administrative staff or outside benefit counselors to advise

them. to be expected to comply with the complicated law and its numerous regulations. can you clarify just some of that for us? >> yeah, that's a very important question. and i think some of the surveys that have been done although we don't necessarily agree with many of the points that came out the nfib reports or the mckinsey report is that there still remain a lot of questions among small business owners. either they don't understand the law. they don't feel they have enough information. and i think that's -- that's an important point we have to take note of. that between now and 2014, we have to continue our efforts to reach out to small businesses and educate them. there are some tools that will be available, for example, on the exchanges. there's a role of these entities called navigators which are going to help people understand the health care law and understand how to access the exchanges but there's more work to be done there. and i think there's been confusion, some misinformation and i think it's something that we definitely need to focus on between now and 2014.

>> new regulations require insurers to spend 80 to 85% of premiums on direct care for patients rather than administrative costs. these requirements may be difficult for small insurers to meet driving them out of the market limiting consumer choice and raising the cost of insurance, which is, of course, as the market decreases, that's always the risk. how can small insurers compete when they don't have the resources or economy of scale to do so? >> well, we're certainly sensitive to the need to maintain competition. ultimately, the affordable care act provides some flexibility in the individual market builder but less on the mlb standards in the small group market. however, again, i think as i mentioned earlier, there were already existing in many states a medical loss ratio standard at or about the standards set out in the aca and i think that

provided a benchmark from which carriers, you know, could launch from. >> interestingly enough, very recently, in fact, last friday, the -- last friday edition of the hill newspaper had a front page article titled "health care law could leave families with higher costs." the article describes the debate over what the story terms a major provision of the health care reform law which provides that if a worker has employer-based coverage, that's affordable for the employee only, the family is expected to take the employer coverage even if it is unaffordable. is this the correct interpretation? and can you clarify some of that for us? >> we're actually looking at that very issue, which is the interpretation of the application of the tax credit to the individual, to the family

and who qualifies at what point when an employer makes an offer. is that binding on the dependents on the family members of the employee? we're anticipating in future guidance to clarify this and a number of issues relating to the application of tax credit and how it works. you know, we put out a first kind of wave of guidance just a couple weeks ago on the exchanges and the next phase of that which will deal with eligibility and enrollment and the application of the tax credit hopefully will clarify some of those issues. >> and then i have one last question. and this also addresses one of the issues that mr. altmire referred to. the tax credit, along the tax credit issue, may apply temporarily and narrowly if the business has fewer than 25 full-time or equivalent employees making an average annual wage of $50,000 or less.

but what about every other small business? what advantages do they have as far as a tax credit? >> well, you're correct in that the tax credit was targeted for the smallest of the small businesses with, you know, under 9 getting the maximum credit and you can get up to 25 depending on what the wages are that you pay your small business. you know, one of the reasons it was targeted because those were the small businesses that had the lowest offering. as you move up to say, employers with 50 employees, you have offer rates, offer rates of insurance coverage that can be in the 80 to 90% rate. so the tax credits were targeted towards that segment of the market that was most in need of help in terms of getting the offer. there are still many benefits as i mentioned in the affordable coverage act.

and ratings are important for the small businesses and i know this is important. small businesses get rated up if they have thicker members and so that practice is going to go away. and that's going to create a lot of fairness and benefit. and then the general benefits of the exchange. much lower administrative costs, cbo found that and that applies to all small businesses not just those under 25 employees. >> so you do see some possible changes or flexibility -- >> well, there are benefits to small businesses but you are right. the tax credit is targeted to the small or small businesses because again it was concluded those are the ones that have the lowest rates of insurance coverage for their employees. >> uh-huh. >> thank you, mr. larsen. i just would like to if some altmire has any additional questions. mr. larsen, i appreciate you for providing your insight on these issues. we will continue to closely follow them and want to work with you and help assure that

small businesses have flexibility and choices in their health care coverage decisions. i want to suggest that mr. larsen ask a member of his staff to remain here during the testimony of the second panel and would you identify -- and i believe we've already spoken, so thank you. perfect. wonderful. and thank you again, mr. larsen for your time. i truly appreciate it. and now i'd like for the second panel to come forward. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> wonderful. let's go ahead and get started. thank you so much for coming today to be with us for this subcommittee hearing. our first witness is douglas holtz-eakin. dr. holtz-eakin is president of the american action forum. he served as a commissioner of the congressionally chartered financial crisis inquiry commission from 2009 to 2011. and director of the congressional budget office from 2003 to 2005. dr. holtz-eakin received his b.a. in mathematics and economics from dennison university and his ph.d. in economics from princeton.

william, dr. holtz-eakin. and you have 5 minutes to present your testimony. >> thank you, chairwoman ellmers and acting ranking member altmire. i appreciate the chance attack about the affordable care acts in small businesses and you have my testimony which i submitted for the record. let me make a couple of points. the first point i think the overriding one is that ultimately the ability of small businesses to offer insurance is contingent on the health of those businesses and their ability to grow. and the affordable care act has many provisions that i think are detrimental to the abilities of small businesses to prosper and grow. there are taxes, the 3.8% investment tax that will be a direct hit on small businesses. there are a large number of mandates and penalties and the regulatory implementation, i think, is daunting to any small business for an environment where in 10 we had a record number of federal register pages that was prior to the

implementation of the affordable care act in dodd-frank and a whole bunch of other things so this adds to the regulatory burden. and even some of the so-called help, the tax credit in particular is structured in a way that penalizes growth. if you add workers, if you pay higher wages, even this temporary tax credit gets scaled back and it's the ultimate penalty for those who succeed and the structure of the aca is not one i would call good economic policy to promote growth especially on small businesses. the second is that to raise insurance costs. there's consensus that it fails to bend the health care cost curve which is the fundamental driving force underneath the premiums and small businesses will suffer from that. it has $500 billion in new taxes. many of them are taxes that are going to go directly to the premium bottom line. my testimony outlines the so-called premium tax on health insurers. there's medical device taxes. all these are higher costs in the food chain and higher

premiums that's going to hurt the ability of a small business to continue to offer insurance and lead many of them to drop their coverage and/or never offer it to begin with. third point, i guess, is that this issue that mr. altmire mentioned with the previous witness and that's the question of the incentives for employers to drop coverage and send their employers to the exchange. and there have now been a number of studies as was mentioned which i've done with my colleague that looked at the pure financial incentives for employers and employees to mutually agree that it would be in their financial interest to provide the insurance through the exchanges and we concluded that up to 35 million american workers would benefit from this arrangement and that their employers would agree that they should go off the exchanges. the only loser in that is the taxpayer who has to pick up an enormous tab. a recent paper by a cornell professor comes to roughly the same conclusion. i'm aware there are other studies that say, no, that won't

happen. their leading argument appears to be it won't happen 'cause we always offered insurance. in the face of a dramatic policy change i don't see why that's a compelling argument. we're seeing the leading edge of evidence. we have survey evidence from mckinsey and pricewaterhou pricewaterhousecoopers that this financial incentive is not real and will be pursued by businesses. and it's a serious concern because the subsidies are enormous. it's well over 10% of their income. it would be financially irrational for employers and employees to ignore that kind of money and if it's true that many pursue this, the budgetary costs of the insurance subsidies through the exchange that's going to explode. it could easily double that was done in the original bill. we are all well aware of the financial problems that face the united states government. and to have this come in much more expensive than was budgeted i think it's an extreme danger

which leads me back to my first point. in the end it is going to be the environment for small businesses to grow and prosper that is crucial. there is nothing about sailing directly toward a debt crisis that is good economic policy or beneficial for the small business community at the heart of our debt problems, are exposed to entitlements and my view is that the affordable care act appearance whole series of upward risks on the budgetary side that make the possibility that that crisis is much higher and as a result has to be viewed as a threat not just to the economy but to small businesses in particular and certainly to their ability to continue to offer insurance to their employees. and i understand the sentiments behind the affordable care act but i think on balance it structures one that hurts the small business community and doesn't aid it in the end. thank you. >> thank you for that -- for your comments. and we do have your testimony. and as we do all of our panelists. i now yield to representative

kingston from georgia for the purpose of introducing his constituent as a witness. >> thank you madam chair. it's a great honor to be with you on this dais. you and mr. altmire, who is a friend of mine, since pennsylvania and i appreciate all the hard work that you do on this subcommittee to try to promote jobs in this tough economic environment. i appreciate the panel for being here. i have a hard deadline at 11:00 with another committee in which i serve so i'm going to be leaving shortly before then but i wanted to say hello and introduce my constituent, brian vaughn. he is no stranger to the struggles of a entrepreneur. he has been with the burger king franchise operation since 1980. and kind of came up through the corporate structure working in florida and in georgia and then in the 1990s, took the plunge to become a franchisee himself and

since that period of time has bought out his partner and been on his own with his wife. i'm not sure if cindy is here. but knows the importance of keeping employees happy by offering good compensation packets, including the good benefit package, worker safety, a good environment to work in and has many employees who's been with him in the management side for over 10 years which is remarkable. he has four stores in three different cities. and also knows what it's like to compete in this environment and to get the customers back in when it's very hard on their pocket books in today's economy. but knows all the challenges that small business people face. really labor, environmental regulations, safety regulations, franchise regulations. i think he's been through it all but has done it successfully. so i'm very proud to have him as

a constituent. and as an example of an entrepreneur. and i wanted to point out also one of his jobs before he became an entrepreneur was to recruit onto nears and he looked at it and did not have to make that plunge and yet he made it anyhow, and i'm proud to have brian vaughn here today and i look forward to his testimony. >> chairwoman ellmers, chairman altmire and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before on how the health care will impact my business and my employees. i own nearly famous incorporated which consists of four burger king restaurants in georgia. and i'm happy to be here on behalf of the chamber of commerce and i'm here on behalf of the franchisee association. nothing i say here reflects

opinions of my franchise or burger corporation. when people think of burger king they think of a big international corporation. even though the sign on the door says burger king, in my four restaurants are small family-owned runned businesses. i began working as a burger king assistant manager in 1980 as the congressman said earning $14,000 a year. after working my way up, i partnered in 1993 with francis lott to open our own four burger king restaurants in georgia. in 2001, i bought out my partners' interests and and today i operate these four restaurants with my wife cindy. we are proud to have create 482 jobs. we have 59 full-time employees and 123 part-time employees. 14 of our full-time employees are managers for whom we currently pay 100% of their health care premiums at an annual cost of nearly $56,000. we also pay for term life, short-term disability, vision, and dental insurance. my wife and i participate in

this very same plan. for our other employees, we offer a value many med plan at a cost of 106 and $165 per month. currently only 19 of the more 100 part-time employees have elected to participate. many employees choose to keep the wages they earn to help pay for their day-to-day living expenses rather than use a portion of their wages to pay for the coverage. as the president of my company, i also have to decide how much of the company's income can be used to pay for wages and benefits and how much has to be used to cover the expensive daily operation. there's only so much money and first and foremost we have to cover our daily expenses. washington, theodore roosevelt, really doesn't understand this. a lot of noise was made last fall about the types of plans that i offer my employees. under the health reform law, washington has decried that these so-called limited benefit plans are not acceptable. despite repeated promises that if you like your plan, you can keep it, the law has -- the law

has outlawed these plans beginning in 2014. i understand that for many and a more comprehensive plan seems a critical and by comparison these limited benefit plans are slim, however, it's important to acknowledge reality. these plans are less expensive and allow my team members to choose to take more of their wages home and use a smaller amount of their wages to pay for some coverage. prior to health reform i had the flexibility to hire more workers, pay them a wage and offer them access to this moderate coverage. now i'm being told by washington that i have to offer all my full-time employees washington-defined health coverage or pay a penalty. because of the cost of offering this prescribed coverage and the size of the penalty i'll have no choice but to restructure my work force in a way that protects me from losing everything i've worked for. what does this mean? well, given the law and the unfinished regulations, and i mean unfinished regulations, it's hard to say. i have no idea.

prior to the law's enactment my goal is then to hire fewer people for more hours. it's easier to retain employees that work full-time. however, now that the law has passed, i have to consider options other than what makes practical business sense. now because of what washington has mandated, it may make more sense for me to hire more people for fewer hours. at a time when millions of americans are out of work. is this really the right incentive? this is not what i want to do. and it's not what's best for my employees. but in order to survive and be able to pay the employees that i have to, it's what we'll have to do. while i have not read the entire law, and i'm not able to follow the regulations, which are being issued as record speed, mind you, i'm trying to figure out how to protect the company that i've spent my entire life building. it's ironic that the law touted as the patient protection and affordable care act neither protects patients nor makes health care affordable. instead, it's a law of broken

promises under which no one will be able to keep the health care they have, even if they like it, it's a law which in a sense allows competency to scale back their work forces and reduce the benefits offered by their valued employees. in conclusion, i understand that given the existing political realities, washington, d.c., a total repeal of the health care law by congress is an unlikely proposition, at least for now, however, i am hopeful that congress will repair or eliminate the more onus burden such as the employer mandate. these provisions saddle businesses with new requirements that actually encourage us not to expand our business and astoundingly discourage us from creating jobs. the bottom line is that your decisions can help or hinder this. the laws you create can either give small businesses greater confidence in certainty to grow and generate new jobs or just do the opposite. regrettably this new health care law is already doing the latter and congress must take the action to rectify it. again, i thank again for this

opportunity and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. vaughn. and i'll just tell you that my very first job at age 16 was with burger king back in madison heights, michigan, in 1980. >> great, thank you. >> thank you again for your testimony. at this moment i would like to introduce mr. william dennis. mr. dennis is senior research fellow at the national federation of independent business. he has directed the nfib's research foundation since 1976. welcome and you have 5 minutes to present your testimony. thank you. >> thank you, ms. chairman, mr. altmire, representative kingston. last weekend, a study with health insurance one year after enactment, what i would like to do is focus my remarks on the result of that study since it's quite current and i think many ways quite relevant to what we're talking about today.

first of all, to be sure we understand who was included in this, we surveyed only people that were under 50. excuse me, small employers that were only -- had 50 or fewer employees. it was a nationally random sample. it wasn't just the nfib members. there will probably be some randomly in there. but this is a national random sample. it was done in late april and in may of this year. so while it wasn't done yesterday, it's current enough to state what we know today. the findings are really quite simple, i think. the first is that we essentially we are in this period of declining offer rates by this series of firms. there are 42% now which is now the continuing of the down trend

over the last 10 years. and our 42% number is not surprising. there was one that was produced that was 39% lower. and so it really does captivate. something else you should understand is that basically nothing has happened in the last year and nothing is projected to happen in the next year. people who had offered before and to offer now and expect to offer in the future. and those who do not -- or have not offered didn't pick it up this year and they don't plan to in the future. so essentially what we're seeing is this continual down trend that's going on and on. the one thing we are seeing, however, is that 20% with insurance expect major changes in that insurance. and virtually all those changes

are not to the benefit of the employee. since enactment 1 in 12 small employers have either lost their specific plan or have been told they will lose their specific plan. of those who claim to be familiar with a law or having some familiarity with the contents of the law, they by very large margins, large margins, particularly, those in insure think that it will not reduce the cost of health care. it will not reduce administrative burdens. it will increase taxes. it will add to the deficit. i do agree more people will be covered although they're not quite sure about whether that's going to yield better -- or yield greater health outcomes. i have a whole series of things here. but to begin with, the tax

credit, let's look at the tax credit. we estimate, using some new data that we collected that we don't think is generally available, out of the 5, 228, 00 class, only a few will take valuable of had tax credit and 1.5 million will be able to take advantage of the partial credit. that's not how many will. we will probably take -- fewer will take advantage of that in part because of knowledge. but that's the maximum that we'll take apart. beyond that there's the whole incentive effect. how many will -- one of the ideas behind this is just not to provide a windfall and have people do what they're already doing. provide an incentive for people to purchase it. to calculate that only about 2%

will have an incentive based on the full credit. and more than that will have an incentive based on the partial credit as well. we also got a bid into the idea of will these small business owners, if these low-incomed people start to leave for the exchanges, what are they going to do? and 21% said they would seriously explore looking at whether or not they're going to drop their health insurance for everybody. now -- and another 26% said that they would somewhat less do that with somewhat less certainty. so there clearly is a tendency or there is a thought process which would lead folks in that direction. and once competition actually sets in, new firms continue to

churn without health insurance, we're going to see real market pressures not to -- not only to add for those who don't have it but to lose it for those who do. thank you. >> thank you, mr. dennis. i now would like to yield to mr. altmire to introduce your witness. >> thank you, madam chair. and it is my pleasure to introduce professor timothy jost. professor jost teaches at the washington and lee university school of law. he is co-author of a case book "health law" used widely throughout the united states in teaching health law. professor jost is the author of numerous articles on health care regulation and comparative health law and policy. he's also consumer representative to the national association of insurance commissioners. professor jost earned his j.d. from the university of chicago school of law cum laude. welcome, professor jost. >> thank you very much.

and thank you, ranking member ellmers and congressman altmire and congressman kingston. the title of today's hearing is small business. if they like their coverage can they keep it? this is a variation of one of the commitments made by the affordable care act realized in section 1251 that if you like your plan, you can keep it. but notice, the aca's commitment is to individuals, not to employers. it is not if you are currently have insurance through your job, you're stuck with that insurance no matter how it changes. it is if you the employee or individual enrolle like your coverage, you can keep it. in fact, most privately insured americans do have insurance through their jobs and regulations adopted last summer by labor treasury and health and human services give employers considerable flexibility to change their plans without losing grandfather status. employers can change their formularies and provider networks and the planned administrators. they can increase deductibles out-of-pocket limits and

copayments not only to keep up with medical inflation but up to 15% more. they can reduce their own contributions to premiums by as much as 5%. they can add new employees and new dependents. of course, if the plan changes too much, it ceases to be the plan it was, probably no longer the plan the enrollee and grandfather status is lost. it's projected that 15 to 30% of the plans would lose grandfather status in 2011. private surveys cited by studies predict higher levels although they also noted that many employers do not really view loss of grandfathered status as a major problem. and some said they wanted to comply with the new law as soon as possible. the nfib survey released last week surprisingly did not reflect widespread loss of grandfathered status. the nfib reports that 90% of small businesses intending to

make changes did not lose their plan. 12% of their employers have had their plan terminated or have been told that it will not be available in the near future. this number is consistent with churn in insurance coverage observed in earlier years and i believe i cited a 2008 nber report which showed this kind of turnover in the early 2000's. plans are always coming and going in a smaller market. nfib also reported that 20% of employers anticipated significant changes in their plans over the next 12 months. but last year and the year before changes in benefits, cost sharings as reported in the kaiser hiet report were at greater levels. this is a bad time in the economy as we all know and things are changing. another and very important question is whether employers will continue to offer coverage after the aca is fully implemented. a number of studies have addressed this question. their predictions range at the extreme from those of dr. holtz-eakin who predicted

that esi would shrink by 22% and others will definitely drop coverage to those of the rand corporation who estimated that coverage would grow by 8.7%. but most studies including studies by booze, urban, mercer, and most importantly the cbo predict that coverage will not change dramatically once the aca is implemented. in fact, all of the reason employers offer insurance now would continue to exist after health care reform goes into effect. most importantly, employee benefits are exempt from federal and state income taxes and payroll taxes. they receive a subsidies for the coverage they receive through their employer. the average american covered by esi has an income of 423% of the

federal poverty level and would not be eligible for any of the premium subsidies under the affordable care act. .. 43% above the poverty level and would not be eligible for the premiums in the affordable care act. employers who dropped insurance would have to dramatically increase to cover this loss of tax subsidy and the law prohibits them from dropping benefits from their lower wage employees but keeping them for their higher wage employees. health benefits also continue to be one of the most highly valued forms of compensation and also help ensure a healthy and productive work force. after 2014, employees are even more likely to demand health insurance at work because of the individual mandate and large employers, not small employers, large employers will face a penalty if they don't offer insurance. in massachusetts which adopted similar reforms in 2006, employers offer rates grew from 70 to 76%.

there is every reason to believe that the aca will not dramatically change the scope of employer coverage in the united states. thank you. >> thank you, mr. jost. i will begin questioning, and my questions are directed to each member of the panel. health care reform was supposed to make health care more accessible and affordable. do you think the new law does anything to help reduce the cost of health care? and i'll start with mr. jost. >> yes. and one example of that is the medical loss ratios which has already been discussed. i follow the medical loss ratios very closely, i was very much involved with their drafting through the national association of insurance commissioners. one of the things that people are beginning to notice is that growth in health care costs has been dropping in the last couple of years. there's another report on that out this morning. at the same time, in the very recent past, insurance profits have been growing very, very

rapidly, and people who follow the insurance industry closely are saying that if insurers have to spend 80% of their premiums on health care costs and costs are dropping, premiums can't continue to rise. they're going to come down. and we already saw that in connecticut where one insurer dropped its rates by 10%, we're starting to see it in other states. i think, in fact, the mlrs is going to have a dramatic effect in reducing the cost of health insurance for employers and individuals over the next couple of years. if i could just add quickly one question that was asked earlier was, will it drive small insurers out of the market? i've read all the state adjustment requests that have gone final, and only in one state have any insurers left since the law went into effect, and as mr. larsen said, people are talking about it. it isn't happening. thank you. >> mr. vaughn? >> well, i certainly would have no way of knowing.

i'm a business person. let me just give you a few numbers so you understand my situation. if you take 2010 and my small business, i'm a sub-chapter s corporation, so at the end of the year, the bottom line of my company was $319,000. if i took -- the way this plan exists now, if i took this plan and i insured all of my employees the way it's designed, it would cost me 307,000, okay, which leaves me $12,000. now, understand, i'm taxed personally on the net income of my company, all right? but do i take that money? absolutely not. what i do, i have to turn that money around and reinvest in the building, buy new equipment and those sort of things. $12,000 doesn't even leave me enough to pay my taxes let alone reinvest in my business. the other piece of this is, i'm not likely to pay a penalty. why would i do that because i'm not really helping anyone. the penalty would cost me as much as the insurance i'm providing now.

so my -- if this thing continues on the path it is, i can tell you right now that i will do everything i can to avoid paying the penalty. i will probably more than likely drop coverage, and what it will do to the cost of insurance, i have no idea. thank you. >> mr. dennis? >> one of the things that's really important to remember, when we started this thing, small businesses were very much in the forefront of calling for reform on health care. and the reason was cost. cost was driving us nuts. this morning i believe i opened the journal, the wall street journal, and saw a study was out from the social security administration which projected that under the plan, under this bill, costs would rise faster than they would otherwise. it wasn't a great deal, but it was indeed faster.

that's first. the second thing is, we're talking about relatively recently we've had some lower rates than we've seen in the past several years, and it's been attributed, some quarters to, indeed, the new law. but in effect what we're seeing is, in this recovery, very different from the last five years, is the relative demand and the relative purchases, if you will, of various services have been much slower than average. and health care has been one of them. whether it's people not having the money to go or they're more pars parsimonious in considering what they could afford, i have no

idea. then we start looking at everything that's inherent. you're going to have minimum benefits, and while we don't know what's going to be in the minimum benefit package, clearly, as mr. vaughn's example, shows there's going to be a whole series of folks that will have to add a lot more or don't do anything. then we have a lot of expensive things we haven't even talked about which don't directly affect smaller firms but some things like the class act and all these kind of things. then we have, of course, a whole lot of new folks coming on. so all this together is going to drive costs higher. >> thank you, mr. dennis. dr. holt? >> i concur. in analyzing the bill that passed and became a law, the actuary concluded that it would raise, not lower, the national health expenditure. if the national health expenditure bill is larger, the

coverage for that bill has to be larger. when the ceo put out its long-term budget expectations, it found that things went up, not down. the law contains two spending programs. they estimate it grows by 8% as far as the eye can see. there is no evidence of bending the cost curve anywhere to be found in those kinds of numbers. so if you dial your clock back to the beginning of the debate, there were two criteria in which any health care should be judged, the ability to cover americans with quality insurance and the ability to deliver that insurance with lower cost and quality. it flunks the latter which is openly the fundamental driver of insurance costs in the united states. so things like the mlr are mere fiddles at the edges of tidal wave spending. and unless we get the tidal wave under control, premiums go up. >> thank you. i have one more question for you at this time.

do you think the health care's mandate and taxes along with the new regulation that are being issued make it less likely that small businesses will hire more workers and expand their companies? again, i'll start with mr. jost. >> well, the -- small businesses, there is some incentives and disincentives. there are benefits under the law that small businesses get, that large businesses get and don't get, and there are some benefits that large businesses get that aren't available to small businesses. for example, large businesses need to cover the essential benefits package. it's not clear to me that's going to be a major expense, because, in fact, what happens is state mandates are going to go away, and it's not at all clear the federal benefits package will cost more than state mandates. but that is something that large businesses need to cover that small businesses don't need to. on the other hand, large businesses need to cover the penalty if they don't pay and

small businesses don't. i come from a family that started a small business about 20 years ago. my brother-in-law started it, borrowing money from us in the rest of the family and it is today a $300 million publicly traded company and its product is a household name. they didn't worry about am i going to win this benefit or lose this benefit if i grow a little bigger? they put out a good product and i think that's how american businesses work. i think under this law it's going to continue to work that way, it's just that employees and individuals are going to have better health care coverage. >> mr. vaughn? >> well, i can start out by saying that overregulation is killing small business. let's just go back to minimum wage. i've already scaled down my staff and i'm running, frankly, as lean as i can run right now and make a living. the reality is there are going to be virtually no full-time jobs in this industry.

i can tell you the way it will work in my company is only my management staff will be full-time, everyone else will work 29 hours a week or less, and it's just that simple. we cannot afford this thing. >> thank you, mr. vaughn. mr. dennis? >> right now, immediately, the overwhelming issue is uncertainty. we have absolutely no idea what's going on, and i think everybody would agree to that. i don't think that's a very controversial statement. nonetheless, that has an enormous impact in terms of what you're willing to do in terms of investing. we're seeing that very clearly within the small business population. we do this monthly survey that we've been doing since 1973, and it's constantly showing that small businesses are much more pessimistic and feel much less -- how can i say --

favorable toward the economy than the larger folks. and that's borne -- their sentiment is borne out by a whole series of measures, including some that are contained in a recent federal reserve of new york paper. but that's the immediate thing. longer term, you have the whole issue of cost and takxes, and they go together, and what does that have to do with it? it simply means if the government has it, then you don't have it, and you have less available to do that. so the question is, you know, you can't invest if you don't have it. then we have the interesting issue of growth and does the divide mean anything? for some firms, it will. it's simply do i go over 50, do

i hold back some from 50 for fear of being held up on that thing. there will be a lot of firms who are growth firms that, as mr. jost used as an example of his brother-in-law, that will just go blowing right on by. they're going to be high growth firms, and they're not going to pay any attention to anything. but it is going to have impact on a whole lot of other smaller firms. >> dr. holtz-eakin? >> i guess i would echo the firm level cost that mr. vaughn mentioned, i think i would echo the firm uncertainty in the growth levels mr. dennis highlighted, but if you step back and look at the affordable care act, it says, let us spend $10 trillion over the next five years and finance that by raising $5 billion in taxes, most of it paid by insurance and let's make insurance rates more expensive, and let's cut roughly

$5 billion out of medicare, something they said is economically unrealistic and will make hospitals unable to serve those beneficiaries. so i take that with a grain of salt. what you have in the end, then, is higher taxes, much larger deficits in a recovery that's utterly unsatisfying, and i cannot conclude that's going to be beneficial for the hiring practices of small businesses. >> thank you, dr. eakin. i now yield to mr. altmire for questions. >> thank you, and i'm glad our panel brought up the subject of taxes and the burden it places on small businesses. i want to ask mr. dennis and mr. vaughn, as you are aware, currently health benefits for employees is non-taxable, and some proposals have recommended requiring employees for the first time ever to pay taxes on health care benefits. and i was wondering from mr. dennis, how would a fundamental change like that impact a small

business's decision to offer health care to its workers? >> the question is really equity in the whole thing. right now we have a system where, if i'm an employer and i contribute to $1,000 or $5,000 to help my employee buy their own insurance on the market, whether it's through the exchange or whatever, there is no tax deduction -- excuse me -- no tax exclusion for the employee where if i'm paying for it, there is an exclusion. that clearly is inequitable, and really, i think in the long term, it's going to hurt smaller firms and their ability to provide this sort of thing is the fundamental inequity involved. you're not asking about the inequity, though. you're asking about whether or not the tax itself, you know, is important.

and the question is, yep, it does lower the amount that you have to pay up front. long term, now, what it does is it encourages more people to use more services, and more services mean higher cost. long term, we just can't have that. we have to start being more parsimonious on these things. >> so you're in support of that policy change? >> of -- we would be in support of making it equitable. i am not sure that our organization has taken the position on whether or not they would be in favor of -- how they would be in favor of handling the tax exclusion issue. >> thank you. mr. vaughn, as a business owner, what would your -- how would your employees react if they had to pay taxes on the health care benefits that you provide? >> well, that's a hypothetical and i apologize for really not having an answer to that.

i can't predict how they would react, but there is something really important here that i don't want to get lost. small employers, let's define, what is a small employer, what is a large employer? the method that's being used right now, and frankly, i can't understand it, and what is a full-time employee and what is a part-time employee, i can't understand that, either. there was a study done recently by the university of tennessee funded by the likes of the burger king, mcdonald's and different ones to determine, what would be the best way to determine what a small business is and what can they afford? have you heard about profit for employee? as opposed to this drawn-out, sort of complicated formula for figuring things out, it's a real simple formula. it's how much money do i make net divided by the number of employees. guess what it is in my industry? $1300. if i pay the penalty, it's $2,000. is that equitable?

does that make sense? there are other industries, whether it's financial or insurance industries, they're $10,000 plus per employee, profit per employee. so my position is this. this thing has to be repealed. i mean, it has to be repealed, and if it's not repealed, at the very least, the regulatory aspect of it should be changed to a system-like profit per employee. i apologize for not answering it directly, i just really don't know how they would react. >> are you concerned to hear that that is a proposal? is that something -- if your representative came and sat down before you and said, hey, here's something i'm thinking about supporting, taxing your employees' health care benefits? >> of course, i would be concerned about that. i'm for lower taxes for anyone. yes, absolutely. >> mr. jost, do you want to comment on what type of fundamental change like that, what the impact would be on the health market? >> i think it would destroy our employment-based health insurance system in this

country. we have a long tradition in the united states that actually has been very successful in providing health insurance to people through their jobs. we're now trying to get beyond that to reach those people who are not covered through that, and that's what the affordable care act is going to do. but to pull the rug out from under employment-sponsored health insurance by removing the tax deductions and exclusions would destroy it and would throw our health care system into chaos. >> dr. holtz-eakin, do you want to comment on that? you look like you have something to say. >> there are two aspects that were mentioned. one is it figures in this discussion how many employers will drop coverage of the affordable care act. the basic premise is how much cash is put out for lower paid workers to drop the coverage, pay the penalty, give them the employee wage, let them go get

insurance. and another subsidy favors high wage workers. those who conclude there will not be an employee drop are counting on the fact that that tax subsidy for high wage workers will dominate, employers will continue to use it to pay their high-wage workers. i think that's a fantasy, quite frankly. be aware that in the end, all you're doing is playing a federal horse race between the two. second thing is, most people who talk about changing the insurance are looking at revenue tax reforms that broaden the base, thus bringing in subsidized coverage for health insurance, and it's about having a tax system that is fair across the low-end and high-wage

workers and provides better growth incentives because margin rates are better. >> last question. i wanted to give you a chance to answer that because i thought i knew what you were going to say. sgrz it w >> it was a shocking question. >> the question i want to ask you and you're not here to pontificate upon taxes, but you bring a lot to the debate and your involvement in the past. i ask, just out of interest, given where we are, this is the law. the bill has passed, it's the law. the supreme court may or may not rule absent knowing what's going to happen there. repeal has failed in the current political environment. we don't know what the future holds there. what would, to the degree you're comfortable assessing it, what would you suggest that congress do as far as tweaking the current law, assuming this is a fact, this is going to continue,

or continue to push for repeal even though it doesn't look like it's a viable option? >> wow. and i have five hours instead of five minutes? >> well -- >> briefly, i think you can point to a couple things. there are some provisions in law that i think universally have garnered some suspicion, i'll use that word, and i think the class act is first among those and probably should go away. it's something ill designed and dangerous to the american taxpayer. the second would be in the array of coverage expansion, the heavy reliance on an unreformed medicaid program, i think many people find problematic. we know medicaid beneficiaries have much more difficulty finding primary care physicians and seeing specialists to simply put more americans in a substandard health care system is problematic, and i think there is just too much money on the table for exchanges. in terms of the coverage expansion pieces, i think you have to look at all that. i won't say a lot about the regulatory issues.

i think making them cleaner, they're getting them done in a fashion that doesn't leave people so perplexed. entirely beneficial. and on the delivery system reforms, i think there are two very big concerns. one would be the role of the independent payment of the advisory board which, as structured, appears to be inevitably led to productions instead of quality improvements. just can't get there. it's got a one-year target on probably the most expensive new therapies. that's detrimental for health care. i would worry a lot about that, quite frankly. and the acos appear to be a respite for industry compensation, not better care. so i think there is work to be done on improving the delivery system and expansion coverages and making sure this thing hangs on budgetarily, of which i deep

concerns. >> are there things in the bill that you worry about in isolation that should be kept? >> i've always been a proponent for exchange type amenities. a better opportunity to shop, compare and pursue health insurance, i think every economist would like that, and i certainly do, so the design of those and exchange decision making i think needs to be part of this law. >> i would now like to recognize mr. king for his questions. >> thank you, madam chair, i thank all the witnesses for being here to testify. i admit my schedule didn't allow me to hear all in depth, so i hope i don't duplicate anything raised before this panel. first i think i would make a statement as to, if anybody wornds whe wonders where i stand on this issue, and i've looked at it from a whole number of different perspectives. i just don't think this is

arguable whether it's sustainable or whether it will improve our health care or improve development rationalizing. i think i understand thoroughly that we're not going to see health care at a cheaper price that's more acceptable or more available. you'll see different people that have access but perhaps it's a shn within the p ship within the population. i began my working life as a small businessman. i started a construction company in 1995, and we provided not the first day because i didn't have employees the first day, but over time, as we began to accumulate employees, i took on the responsibility to voluntarily provide them health insurance. and when i've watched this debate be shifted here in this country, so health care in

health insurance, had those meetings inflated. i think it was dishonest, i think it was disingenuous, and i think it was willful, a strategic effort to try to blur the efforts. i remember then governor of iowa, governor cull ver, coming to this capital meeting and saying, 40,000 kids in iowa don't have health care. i don't know how many times i had to ask him what that meant before i could get through to him that health care and health insurance are two different things. i make the point that i don't believe an employer has -- if they choose to accept a responsibility to provide health insurance for their employees, that's a competitive position in the marketplace, but not a moral obligation for the employer. to hire good people and keep good people is the motive. when the federal government decides to impose an employer mandate, then that sets another

standard, and in the minds of people now, they think it's an entitlement that goes with a job. and i think that's a mistake, i think it saps some of our vitality. but i wanted to take this down to the constitutional aspect of it, and just noticing that we had a law professor here, mr. jost, and that's the part that grates on me the worst. we can talk about policy all day long. i've drawn the conclusions i'm at and i've also drawn them on the constitutional side of this. but i take it down to the individual mandate rather than the employer mandate side of this and ask this question. if the federal government can constitutionally commandeer a portion of a person's paycheck or a portion of the revenue of an employer, for that matter, if they can commandeer that and assign it to a government-produced or government-approved product, which is premiums for health insurance that is approved by the federal government, then

what limitation would there be on the commandeering of that revenue stream beyond health care? is there a constitutional line here i don't understand, or could it also be for a car or an appliance, buying certain types of health food or a member in a health clinic -- excuse me; perhaps a gymnasium. is there a constitutional line beyond that? if the supreme court rules in favor and upholds this bill, this act, this law of the land as mr. altmire referred, i believe, if they do that, what can the rest of the workers in america look forward to being commandeered? where is the line? >> again, i only have five minutes rather than five hours, probably less than that. i would refer you to an excellent opinion on this topic written by judge sutton of the sixth district, a very well-known conservative judge who, in fact, has been prominently mentioned as a

supreme court potential nominee. what judge sutton said and what the other federal-federal judges, a majority of federal judges who have considered this question said, in favor of the constitutionality in the statute, and number one in the constitution, commerce has authority to regulate commerce. under earlier decisions commerce must regulate economic decisions. it cannot regulate non-economic conduct. but what judge sutton and the other federal judges have found is that the health care marketplace and often the insurance marketplace are interstate commerce. in fact, it's the largest sector of our economy -- >> excuse me. if an individual doesn't engage in purchasing health insurance, then they're not engaging in commerce with the purchase of health insurance, and if you expand the argument to utilizing health care services, if an

individual is born and dies in a state and doesn't cross the state line and doesn't use medical care of any kind, and that happens, it's always happened in every generation, how is it that they're engaging defacto in interstate commerce? >> well, what judge sutton said is on its face the statute is constitutional. he has implied there may be some situation where somebody will come forward who says, i have never used health care in my life, i will never use health care in my life, i can prove it, the law should not apply to me, and that might be a different case. we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. >> we have come to it, because the constitution has to apply to everybody. >> right, but a statute -- the first question is, has congress written a statute that is facially constitutional? could it be constitutional as applied to some people and as applied to 99.999% of the population people use health care. >> you say the statute presumes

that everyone does use health care and it presumes that health insurance is an obligation that's a component of health care, and if it presumes that everyone is utilizing, then the constitutional rights of those who do not are directly, then, incorporated into that. so they don't have their constitutional rights unless they assert them. we have to pass legislation that constitutionally protects everyone. that's the point i would make, and i went way past my time, i'm sorry, but i appreciate the indulgence and i yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. that was a very interesting exchange, so i appreciate that question and the line of questioning. i think those are definitely some of those issues that as we move forward that really does need to be discussed. so even though we went over, that was -- i can say it's all right. do you have any other questions at this time, and mr. altmire, do you have any?

i have a couple questions i would like to ask starting with dr. holtz-eakin. you have said in the health care law that it's a threat to the health of small businesses and the mandates and penalties are a financial burden. do you think small firms disproportionately affected by the various mandates, penalties, and taxes in the law, will this affect their ability to increase employee wages, purchase equipment and hire new workers? >> absolutely. if you think of the smallest of the small businesses that the proponents of the law like to say, look, they get the credit and they're exempt from the mandate, so it's all going to be good. the reality is they will face the upward premium pressures that inevitably come from the benefit mandates that already have begun to be implemented and have drawn premiums up. the taxes that will be imposed

on insurers and others, i've walked through the arithmetic of this, this is $5,000 for a family in five years. every time those premiums go up, they come up at expensive wages. there's no way around that. so even those ostensibly spared the greatest cost burden and even were temporarily helped, although i'm not a fan of that credit, i think it's a bad deal. >> thank you. mr. vaughn, i have a question for you. you currently have 30 full-time employees, is that correct? and a number of part-time employees, so 30 full-time and a number of part-time. with the employee mandate in the health care law, is it likely you will create any additional full-time positions? >> well, as i mentioned earlier, it's not likely. it's likely that i'll cut to fewer full-time positions. what's interest about what m

mr. -- i want to pursue this without tax exempt dollars. this thing is extreme. mr. jost said earlier the large firms, they're not worried about it. it's probably not even on their radar screen. that's just the cost of doing business for them, but again, it's clearly, in my case, going to create more part-time jobs, and frankly, people more dependent on the government and i will be cutting even more jobs. >> do you feel you might have to cut wages also? now, especially, of course, we have minimum wage, but as far as like potential increases in wages, do you think you may have to draw back on that as well? >> i think so. obviously, someone mentioned earlier that wages should be a

function of competition in the market. and i think those of us that are in this business, we're all pretty much in the same situation. we're in a pennies business, and our margins, literally, you know, we said this thing about burger king and people look at us as very wealthy and very rich. out of a dollar, we keep less than a dime at the end of the day. and so there is just no way we could afford it, absolutely none. >> thank you, mr. vaughn. and my last question -- i have two questions, actually, for professor jost. if the forthcoming mandates minimum essential benefit package requires employers to offer a base amount of coverage, that package will undoubtedly exceed the coverage that the small businesses currently offer, aren't the premiums likely to increase for the employer or the individual or both? >> i'd like to refer to a study that was published last month by the urban institute in which

they projected that the firms for small employers, average employer contribution per person covered would in fact decrease by 7.4% after the affordable care act is fully implemented. and the reason for that is the exchanges. right now small employers have to deal with individual insurance companies, and they don't have the economies of scale large employers do. they often have risk pools that are less favorable than large employers, and they're on their own. even if they get a good rate this year, they could be canceled next year or they could get a higher rate next year. in the exchanges, their business is going to be pooled with the business of all the other small employers, and there's going to be lots of competition in the exchanges, there's going to be national insurers as well as the domestic insurers, maybe some of these new cooperatives that they're going to be talking about today, and so the projection is that, in fact, costs will go down. now, with respect to the essential benefits package in

particular, i had always assumed that small businesses provide less rich benefits than large businesses, but i tried to check on that the other day and found out that, in fact, if you look at the national compensation survey, the benefits are pretty much comparable. they cover pretty much the same things. and the reason, again, is because of the state mandates that require in many states employers to cover a lot of the same benefits, insured employers. so the essential benefits package only covers benefits. it doesn't prescribe cost sharing. and right now a lot of the game is in trying to increase cost sharing in various ways. that's probably one of the reasons why health care costs are going down, because employees have more skin in the game, and i think that under the essential benefits package, number one, it isn't going to change that much what the benefits employers are going to have to offer, and number two, they'll still have the ability to do considerable adjustment in the cost sharing to try to save costs.

>> can you just describe to me the difference -- you mentioned national insurers and domestic insurers. can you identify for us what you mean by that? >> yeah. under the affordable care act, the office of personnel management is supposed to come up with at least two, maybe more, national multi-state insurance plans that will be available in every state. it's going to be like the insurance you have, congresswoman, where, through the federal employees self benefits package where you have a choice of national insurers as well as local hmos or other small carriers at the state level. and that's going to introduce more competition into the insurance market. again, i've been looking at all these adjustment requests that come through, and what you see is in many states, you have what you have in my market, where you have 80% of the share of the market. well, they set the price. nobody else can really compete with them. but we're going to see a number

of insurers competing and competition brings down prices. >> and so can you describe to me, then, the domestic insurers? >> by that i meant insurers that are already there that are licensed in the state. >> and when you describe the national, are those private insurance companies, or would that be the government plan? >> no, they have to be private insurance companies. they have to be a company licensed in the state. >> okay, well, thank you all so much for your participation. if you did have another question, i'm more than welcome -- we'll definitely approach that. this subcommittee will continue to closely follow the issues related to this implementation of the health care law. it's very important that we stay on top of this as it moves forward, especially since things

seem to be evolving as we go along. i ask unanimous consent that three articles be submitted for the hearing record, an article from cranes new york business dated june 23, 2011 entitled "health reforms, grandfathering rules likely to raise costs." an article from forbes dated july 4, 2011 entitled "health care tax credits are having a miniscule impact," and an article from the hill, which i had mentioned earlier, dated july 21, 2011 entitled "health care law could leave families with high health care costs." without objection, so ordered. all those in favor, signify by saying aye. all those opposed signify by

saying nay. the ayes have it, the request is agreed to. i ask unanimous consent that legislators have five business days to submit materials and support for [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and now account of latino

elected officials talk about voting trends, the census, retention and the 2012 elections. national association of latino elected and appointed officials hosted this discussion in san antonio, texas, at its annual meeting in june. about an hour and 20 minutes.

he and i met a for rent for the 1990 census so that was quite some time ago. but it was really about two years ago when national hispanic organizations like those that are represented up here, along with others, and national hispanic media companies like ours, along with others, convened for the very first time to begin planning the campaign that would result in the 2010 census count. and as we came together, we clearly understood what the challenges were. everybody in this room knows them personally. the issues of fear, the issues of status, the transient sea of our community. and just misunderstanding about what the census means. but we also recognize the important benefits that come with a complete count. the federal resources that we need to improve our schools, our

infrastructure, our transportation. and most importantly, the designation of no political boundaries piqua developed out of those meetings was the most comprehensive, and arguably the most effective campaign, of its time. the results of these efforts were impressive. latino participation rates in the census over all were historically high, and the outcomes both in terms of the growth rate and the characteristics of our population, were heralded by virtually every media outlet in america. "the wall street journal"'s front-page captured the sentiment with the headlines, latinos feel growth in a decade. and if any of you saw that front page, there was a map, and over the map the headline, loss united states. and as we all know it wasn't just in the traditional urban centers like los angeles and houston and new york. it was all across america.

and into communities like akron, nashville and indianapolis. latinos are changing the face of america. so now we turn to the topic of this morning, why do these demographic shifts mean, and how does the community now turn those numbers into clout? this morning we are going to hear from a prominent leaders in the field, arturo vargas, of course she'll be here at naleo, a leader in trends and the census. arturo will discuss the impact of those numbers. the latino vote for 2008 and 2010, and the implications as we set forth on the election cycle for 2012. and i think will here for the very first time projections for 2012 latino turnout. nina perales is the direct at the mexican-american legal defense and education fund. her litigation has included

successful statewide redistricting cases in both texas and arizona. and she will talk about maldef in the southwest. opportunity to advance political progress, barriers and the challenges. she will be followed by juan cartgena, who was recently elected president and general counsel for latino justice prldef. juan is a well-known civil rights attorney, has extensive litigation experience in the areas of voting rights, employment discrimination, education and language rights. e. as will share his views on redistricting, especially as it relates to the eastern coast states and florida. i'm going to wrap up the panel by asking a few questions that will expand beyond redistricting of politics into other areas that we all care about, education, immigration, and political empowerment. so we hope to spark a lot of debate and discussion this

morning, and we're going to start off by hearing from arturo who will talk about the results of the 28 -- 2008, 2010 elections and implications for 2012. >> thank you, monica. and once again good morning, everybody. so, before we get into our projections for 2012, what i would like to do is remind us a little bit about the impact of latinos borders and impact we had in the 2008 and the 2010 elections. let's not forget decisive impact we had in the past two elections. so i'm going to take you back, if we can get our powerpoint up, take you back to 2008. and remind us that not only did latinos have an impact in november of that year, but there was a decisive role that latinos played in both the republican

and democratic primaries. with regard to the republican primary race between mitt romney and john mccain, who are the ones leading as they went into the florida primary care essentially, had john mccain that carried the state of florida he probably would have dropped out of the race. but because john mccain carried florida with more than 50% of the hispanic vote, he won that state and put him on a trajectory to win the nomination. had no hispanic vote in the republican primary of 2008 in florida, mitt romney would have edged out john mccain. in the democratic contest between obama and -- senators obama and clinton, we remember senator obama had a huge lead having won the primaries in iowa, new hampshire and nevada. yet on super tuesday senator clinton was able to get the lion's share the vote by carrying states like california, which had a colossal 370 delegates, making her competitive throughout the

primary season. senator clinton was able to stay in the race to the very end on the strength of her hispanic support. so we were decisive in both defining the outcome of the republican primary race, and influencing the contest on the democratic race. and, of course, on november 8 -- november 4, 2008, 2.7 by latinos were heard at the polls and were able to be decisive in a number of states, turned the election for senator obama in that contest. and then just last year we saw again a historic impact of latino voters and candidates, both had on the race. we have projected last year that 6.5 million latinos would vote in that election. now these numbers have come out, and 6.6 million latinos participated in that race. not bad for nearly a just thing

off by 100,000 in hitting it almost on the mark. [applause] >> so to historic things about that contest last year. latino voters have a decisive impact. many attribute the democrats being able to hold onto the u.s. senate by virtue of the latino vote in states like colorado, where michael bennet was able to be elected after having been appointed to the seat in colorado. harry reid being able to maintain his seat in nevada, and in california been able to carry all of the statewide races for the democrats. however, i'm republican side side we truly saw an historic development with the election of marco rubio to the united states senate. we saw the first latino governor elected in the state of nevada, and the first latina ever elected governor of any state with the election of susana

martinez the first woman governor, first latino governor of the state of new mexico. and then historic gains by republicans in the united states house of representatives, more than doubling their numbers from three to seven with the election of the first latinos to represent the states of washington and idaho in the u.s. congress, and the elections of canseco will be with us on saturday, and bill florez here in the state of texas. so, decisive impact in 2008. decisive impact in 2010 for voters. let's talk a little bit about last year's 2010 census. the population increased by about 10% nationally. yet the latino population increased by 43%, reaching the mark of 50.5%. in fact, latinos accounted for more than half of the total u.s. population growth. so think about it this way.

i think it helps us, remind us about the growth of our community and how much of an impact we are having on the demographics of this country. the united states grows by a person every 15 seconds. every 30 seconds that person added to this country is a latino or latina. so think about it. we've been sitting here in this room now for about 20 minutes. do the math. that's how much our community continues to grow, and how much we continue to contribute to this country. now, we were also able to prevent net decline in a number of states in the last decade. states like illinois, new jersey and new york would actually have lost population, net population, had it not been for the increase of latinos. but the story of the 2010 census is twofold. the first headline was the rise

of the latino south where we saw increases in states such as south carolina, north carolina, georgia, and certainly here in texas. texas experienced the largest increase in latinos, 4.3 million added to the country , i mean, to the state of latinos accounted for 65% of texas' total population increased. the second headline at the 2010 census is the usefulness of the latino population. on april 1, 2010, almost one in four young people, meaning every single american under 18 years of age in the country, was a latino. more than half of all the young people in the state of california and new mexico are latina. about 40% of all the young people in arizona and nevada are latina. and here in the state of texas, 48% of every single texan under the age of 18 is a latino. as i keep reminding ourselves,

we are not a minority population. we are a future population. [applause] >> so the immediate impact of the 2010 census is the shift of political power. from the northeast and the midwest to the south and to the west. and it is acting fairly obvious that the states of nevada, utah, arizona, texas, the carolinas and florida will all have more clout in congress by virtue of the increase of their latino population. and we shortly we'll hear from my colleagues who are the expert in voting rights law to talk about how we are doing in terms of converting those numbers into political representation. so, this has now set the stage for 2012. we know we can make a difference in both political parties, primary elections.

in a primary system. we know that we can make a difference in a national election for president. we know we can make a difference in midterm congressional elections. we know that our numbers have increased exponentially from 2000-2010. we know that weird one out of six americans, one out of four young people. and we are poised now to continue that trend in 2012. so based on what is happening in the past, this is what the naleo fund is projected for latino voter turnout next year. nationally we anticipate that 12.2 million latinos will go to the polls next november. that's a 25% increase in voters from 2008, and we will become 8.7% of the national share of all voters. we know there's a different state to state. arizona will have 360,000

latinos turnout for the polls, almost 4 million latinos we project will vote in california. more than 1.6 million in florida. we see x. financial increases in those states of latino votes. in states like illinois, new jersey, new mexico, new york and texas, our number of voters will also continue to increase. here in the lone star state, we project nearly 2 million latinos will go to the polls in november 2008. so that's the good news. we will continue to see historic numbers of latino voters in next years election. we anticipate that the road to the white house in 2012, once again, will go through latino communities, that both political parties and candidates that present themselves to the presidency will necessarily have to have a latino strategy to capture their share of the vote nationally. but i also want to present a sobering statistic about the work that we have ahead of us.

so this line shows the steady increase of latino voters from presidential elections the presidential elections. it shows how in 2008, 9.7 million latinos turned out at the polls. and our projection of 12.2 million latinos in 2012. which is tracked very closely by the number of latinos we project to be registered to vote in next year's election. and how that has tracked very closely. but pay attention to this next number. this is the number of latinos who can vote. in fact, the number of latinos who are eligible to vote is growing faster and greater than the number of latinos who do vote. every election we do make incremental increases, but we need to do more to turn out the people who are eligible to vote. by 2012, 2.4 million more

latinos will enter the potential electorate. largely based on the power of latino youth who are turning 18 years of age every single year. between '08 and 2012 we will see nearly two and a half million more latinos become eligible to vote, and people we need to engage. the fact that we are not closing that gap between the green line and that blue line is our challenge. and there i number of things i think we need to do to make sure that we can make a difference you in these projections. number one, i think we need to change the way we fund, the way we encourage people to get out and vote. we starve the civic engagement infrastructure every off year election. organizations like the naleo educational fund in 2011, we are not able to raise the resources to invest in infrastructure and

capacity to be able to prepare for the elections in 2012. and then come election time, the money goes out very close to election time to try to mobilize latino voters. .. >> your life will change. because this is not going to happen. nothing changes with just one

election. we know that. it changes with the consistent and sustained participation of people in the political process. and that's the message we need to start communicating to our people. that we need to develop a culture of participation where voting every year is something we do. it's not something we wait for every four years. it's something we do day in and day out. and that's a message we need to change. we need to reach the unengaged. 9.7 million latinos stayed in the election we project another 20 million will stay home. we need to reach out to them. we need to find out who they are

and get in their heads and find out what messages they listen to, who they find credible and determine what will motivate them to vote in the elections. that requires investment and civic engagement strategies to convince this gate unengaged election to participate. and unless we're able to make more than just incremental increases in our electric majority from election cycle to election cycle, we truly will not be able to hold accountable our government for our communities interests. so with that, i'd like to now invite them to determine these numbers into clout as we're monitoring the redistricting process. thank you. [applause]

>> i think it's latino justice -- who's next. because i see his powerpoint is up. so juan, you're up. it is nina? [laughter] >> i don't have a powerpoint. that was what was causing some of the confusion. thank you very much for having me. it's an honor. the theme thus far, at least for what maldef is observing and redistricting is that there is substantial growth within the latino community but the government bodies that do redistricting are not rushing to create latino opportunity districts. anybody who has done redistricting before is sitting here not particularly surprised. latinos are growing as arturo mentioned in traditional areas, states that have had historically substantial latino populations, including, texas, california, illinois, florida,

new york. but latinos are actually growing in new areas. areas where one doesn't necessarily to see sizeable latino populations. just, for example, kansas, north carolina, georgia. i saw a statistic the other say who say there is more latinos in north carolina than there are in nevada. and i found that very surprising. it's not what you would usually expect. as a result of latino growth and other demographic shifts, congressional seats, the seats in the u.s. house of representatives are shifting towards the west and towards the south out of the northeast and out of what is traditionally referred to as rust belt states. so, of course, the big winner for everybody here who is a fellow texan was the state of texas with an increase of four congressional seats. california had no loss of congressional seats and i believe that's largely due to growth in the latino community. arizona picks up a seat.

nevada picks up a seat. florida picks up two seats. illinois loses a seat but i think could have possibly lost more without minority growth. despite the fact that we have sizeable numbers in many places, our political opportunities, our ability to electric the candidates of our choice are also often frustrated in redistricting in the drawing of election boundaries when the boundaries are drawn to fracture our communities, to make it more difficult for us to vote with other latinos to electric our preferred candidates. we still face obstacles that we have faced in the past, including, racially polarized voting, which is the tendency of latinos to vote for one candidate and the tendency of non-latinos to vote for a different candidate in the same election. still, a continuing legacy of a history of discrimination.

those of us who are texans know that even up into the 1970s there were systemic and official barriers to registration and turnout. and that these effects linger in many latino families. and we have current race-based opposition to creating latino majority districts. and then finally one of the biggest hurdles that we face is incumbency protection. it doesn't matter whether the line drawers are democrats or republicans. if drawing a latino majority district is going to impinge on an incumbent member of whatever body we're redistricting, we're going to get push-back. not limited to that person but also sometimes to the political party as well. two states that we're focusing on right now in redistricting are california and texas so i wanted to give you a very quick snapshot of how it's going. i will tell you over archingly,

it's not going very well. latinos who are 38% of the california population right now. latinos comprised 90% of the growth in california since 2000. nevertheless, the redistricting commission that is currently drawing the assembly, senate and congressional lines for california has just rolled out its first draft maps. in the assembly, there are currently 13 latino opportunity districts and the commission has created 13 latino opportunity districts. that's no-net gain despite maps that we showed them that -- show that you can increase by 5 in the assembly, it gets worse for senate and congress. right now we have seven latino opportunity districts in the california senate, commission has rolled out maps showing 5, which is a net reduction of 2. despite the fact that we showed them they can draw 10. in congress, we currently have 8

opportunity districts. the commission has rolled out a plan with either 6 or 7. one of them is very difficult to tell who's opportunity district it is. again, we're looking at losing 1 to 2 congressional seats in california despite a map we showed them that you can draw 11. in texas, we have legislative redistricting and that process is winding up now -- the legislature has passed plans for house, senate and congress and the governor is in the process of signing them. in texas, latinos are 38% of the population, comprised 65% of the growth in the last decade. in the texas house, the maps passed by the legislature reduces by 1 the number of latino opportunity districts that we opportunity districts we currently have. there's no gains in senate and no gains in congress. i don't hear you clinking your silverware anymore. [laughter] >> maldef's redistricting

program have a number of facets. we're very focused on these states and redistricting as it's coming out in other states. our program is nationwide in its geographic scope. we have teams based out of our regional offices in the west, the southwest, the midwest and the southeast. we do outreach and education. if anybody here would like to meet with somebody from maldef to have a community meeting about redistricting we're all about it. we'll get out wherever you are. and we'll bring our materials and we'll do a community-based education wherever we are called to do it. we assist local communities in mapping. and in offering testimony. and we do this not just for the exciting stuff, the state house or senate or congress, but for school boards, county commissions or county supervisors, whatever bodies are getting redistricted because those redistricting plans have a huge effect on people at the local level. and then finally, if things are

not going particularly well we do have the ability to litigate. we're in the midst of redistricting right now so i urge you all, if you're not already involved to become more involved because this process will end within the next year and we will be stuck with the results for the next 10 years. as we transition into the phase of drawing maps and adopting maps, we're now looking at the litigation phase. maldef has already filed a challenge in texas and we're in federal court. we have our hearing next friday and we'll be challenging in other places if necessary. we urge you to be vigilant and urge you what's going on in redistricting. call us if you want us to do a community meeting. and call us if you want to bring a lawsuit. thank you. [applause]

>> good morning to everybody. my name is juan. i just started a job two months ago, as the president and general counsel of latino justice puerto rican league defense and education fund. the good news is that i know the organization very well. in fact, i started there 30 years ago when i started my career as an attorney in 1981. and regarding today's topic for you as we discuss these issues is that i'm very happy to say that my career actually started following a voting rights lawsuit against the city council, the city of the new york, that resulted in drawing city council lines for making them fairer for latinos in the state of new york. so this is actually my fourth round of redistricting. i know you don't believe it because i look so young. [laughter] >> but this is my fourth round

and it only happens once every 10 years. i have very, very quickly i'm just going to go through a couple of states that we're working on at latino justice and in doing so i will give you examples of kind of some of the challenges that we're addressing in this area. as civil rights attorneys and voting rights attorneys the law constantly shifts on us. you have to remember that the laws that allows for equal opportunity for the area of voting under constant attack by a conservative part of this country that believes somehow we have reached the magic mountaintop. that we have reached the era of post-racial considerations in which everybody is treated equally everywhere they walk in america. we know and assume that's not true. we should also know and assume that we still have quite a ways to go to make sure that we are fully integrated into the legislatures of the united states. and in many ways that is a

battle. and i love to use the label of integration 'cause that's really what we're talking about. integrating our voices in every state legislative body, every county legislative body, city council legislative body, water districts, school districts, congress, senate and up 'cause when these bodies who represents us start to speak to our concerns, in many cases start to look like us, and in many cases speak to our concerns whether they are our race or not, then we're at a point to where we can actually achieve the issues that affect us so i'm just going to go very quickly. i'm not sure how i can work on my slides. perhaps -- aquita. the eastern seaboard of the united states to florida is where we work at latino justice and the dynamics of the latino populations there are different.

not completely different than what happens in the rest of the country but there are some different dynamics, of course. the latino population from the caribbean part of our history and our world and our presence in the western hemisphere is more pronounced there, as you well know and as a result we are dealing with populations up and down the seaboard. secondly, when you compare the eastern seaboard to the entire united states, you're looking at population shifts. most of the population shifts are coming here to the southwest. with one big exception. and that's where we start and that's florida. florida is an incredible place of both economic growth and population growth. and when it comes to latino populations the growth for all latino groups, mexicans, cubans, puerto ricans, dominicans, is very, very high and a lot of that growth is being censored in what we call central florida, osceola county and those environs and what we're seeing

in that shift as an incredible opportunity. florida happens to be in a position now to gain two congressional districts. at this present point if time people are speaking to florida to create these new districts. i've done this worth quite a bit a you been in of years. there are a few times that i've had an opportunity to talk to states, to organizers and voting rights activist business creating a new opportunity, a brand-new district. most of the time i'm dealing with population decline or population stagnation. florida is actually the opposite. and to its credit, with a lot of work that we have done there regarding -- providing workshops, providing technical workshops, and maps helping with the creation with what's called the central redistricting commission, helping with a number of partners that you see right there that we provided information to, and run the gambit with puerto rican chamber of commerce, lulac and others we are providing information to

community groups there to make sure they are able to regain one additional seat anchored in central florida. anchored in central florida and that will provide a wonderful opportunity to try to create additional voices in congress. but the issues of florida are very complex. we have population growth in various areas. we have a unique population growth in demand graphics of the puerto rican population. others are coming up from the islands of the puerto rico because the economic instability there. and puerto ricans leaving the northeast end corridor going down south to florida, again, because of the economic pressures up in the northeast particularly in new york. so the combination and the conflux of both north and south migration is resulting some unique dynamics in florida. so that is one of the first questions i want to raise for you. as we talk about redistricting, of course, we have to talk about issues about not only who's eligible to vote as arturo says,

who can see out to vote and that gap that arturo showed you between voting age population people who vote but, of course, citizenship. and citizenship levels, of course, are different depending on which part of the country we're talking about and different at various rates depending on which national origin group we're talking about. so the issues in florida are unique in that respect and we are lucky enough to be in a position of growth in florida for that purpose. in pennsylvania, we're doing excellent work in pennsylvania in the city of philadelphia to try to create a latino-based district and strengthening up the city of the philadelphia district 7. i will tell you right now that if we're successful, we will have been able to stop -- or i should say end the existence of one of the most convoluted gerrymandered city council districts almost passed in the history of the united states. a district that meanders around

the district of florida and districts that looks like boxes and suspiciously it's an area of law and nina and i could talk about for hours where appearances matter. how districts look actually make a difference. so we will be lucky in philadelphia if we get rid of the most gerrymandered latino district there for that population. in new jersey, we've had an incredible wave of activity in the innew jersey. new jersey like virginia was the first two states in the country to be forced to redistrict their state legislatures on a very fast track because by law they're required to do so the year the census data is issued. so in november, new lines have been cast in both of those states and in new jersey we spend quite a bit of time assisting communities there. i am now of the mindset that my goal in new jersey is actually living more long term. new jersey uses a very unique

way to elect its representatives 120 people get elected from only 40 districts. i'll repeat. 120 legislators get elected from only 40 districts. every district elects one state senator and two-state assembly persons. we all know what that means in places like texas. there's at-large districts and we know that in general the political will of the numerical minority in each of those 40 districts will always be submerged because at-large districts by definition always submerge the political will of the numerical minority. in new jersey's case 90% of the population is lateen expo we have to make sure that the entire structure is revisited. in new york, two things are happening in new york that i would like to emphasize. number 1 we lost two congressional seats. the word on the streets whether those seats went down to florida. i mean, that probably makes sense between the migration of new york and florida but here's

the interesting part of new york's opportunity. there is a certain congressman from new york whose name i will not mention here because he's been somewhat overexposed. [laughter] >> that gentleman and the fact that he's no longer representing this particular district actually provides an opportunity for new york city's latino community with latino majority or peninsularal populations. in new york city we don't talk about those things directly but there actually are four. two of them are held by two long-standing representatives. congressman saldonno and congressman velazquez. but two others are very large in latino population and the departure of that certain congressman whose name i do not need to mention gives us an

opportunity to shore up in the city of new york and we're looking forward to that as well. the second thing that is happening in new york is a lawsuit that we filed just a couple of weeks ago along with many of our friends and partners in the civil rights community. and it goes to defending a law that governor patterson signed right before he left office and that law is pretty interesting. that law basically said that the census count of prisoners should be adjusted to reflect the home districts that those prisoners came from instead of the districts in which the prisons are located. for the purposes of redistricting only and for purposes of local redistricting alone, i'll repeat. local redistricting in new york state, the state's legislative county of redistricting should be based on a justice census data that reflects the home districts of prisoners and not the districts in which the

prisons are located. there's a short-term phrase for that, prison gerrymandering. i'm not sure if the phrase does it or the justice that it needs. but what it really did -- we worked on this legislation for a while and now we're in a position to defend it because it's, of course, constitutionality is being under consideration and the fact of the matter is prison populations throughout the united states have increased. and the fact of the matter is, that where you live should be determinant of the fact where you actually should be counted. and as a result you get this artificial counts in prison towns in upstate new york where one particular prisontown could have half of its total population be prisoners, none of which live in that city. and they count it as residents of that prison community, that prison location. i'll end with this point.

in new york state, the criminal justice system actually produces racially skewed outcomes. latinos and blacks in new york state get stopped, frisked, charged, indicted, denied bail, convicted, sentenced at rates much higher than their white counterparts. even when you control the time and control for drug use. so if you're producing racially skewed outcomes again in the criminal justice system and then you translate that discrimination and allowed to infect the political process by counting people elsewhere, then you're looking political power down state in new york city. and that is one of the issues in new york state. very quickly, i'm almost -- [inaudible] >> massachusetts, here it is.

we are doing some really good work in massachusetts to try help and create a continued opportunities for communities there. we're doing some mapping. and have done quite a bit of work particularly in conjunction with the dominican american national round table. we have done excellent work in massachusetts, new jersey and new york. in connecticut, we're at a point now where we're trying to help the community there create its first ever elected latino to the state senate of connecticut. connecticut has 36 state senators. none of which in history -- and they're struggling to create one that's anchored in hartford. connecticut by the way also has, i believe, some 50-some odd state house of representatives. they love democracy in connecticut. 150 in the house. 36 in the senate. that's quite a bit for a population of about -- i think it's about 3.4 -- excuse me, 3.5. and we're trying to make sure that the the senate is

integrated fully by allowing assistance there in that state as well. i had done some work 10 years ago in rhode island particularly in the area of providence and we're going to repeat that work there very, very soon. so in virginia, and i'm going fast. i'm very sorry, 'cause i know i'm running out of time. we just analyzed some redistricting plans out of prince william county and submitted a comment on the section 5 expressing our concern about the fractures of communities there. i want to just now touch on two general themes that came out before and i think they're very important. the combination of what nina said and arturo are said are very important for our populations as we go forward. in some ways they have raised very important questions as we deal with issues of redistricting. the first is redistricting you should know is not the cure-all. it's not the silver bullet. it's not the panacea.

all redistricting does, if we do it well, is give us opportunities to elect candidates of our choice. if we do this well, if we take advantage of this opportunity, this window of time that only occurs in the first couple of years of every decade. and if we do this well we'll be able to create those opportunity districts. but by yourself that doesn't mean a shift in power. because it requires us to mobilize and get our communities to vote. to mobile osto get good candidates and to run for office. to mobilize to get them financed as they run for office and to mobilize to make sure that the combination of confluence of all those factors occurs in some measure of success on election day. in many ways when i when arturo mentioned that gap between voting age population, eligibility and who actually votes and who's registered to vote and who turns out to vote, there are many things that state legislatures can do to ease that and help narrow that gap.

we talk about voters who stay at home but the fact probably the better way is especially if they stay at work. see, 'cause voting in many states is constantly a feature of who turns out to vote in, what, an 8 to 12-hour cycle on a weekday which is normally a workday for all of our populations. the inability to states to enact really progressive ways to deal with access to democracy. same day or election day registration. multiple or early voting. voting that occurs in different ways so that we can maximize a number of people so people can actually vote is critically important. and this bookie man has constantly thrown in our face we have voter fraud and as a result we have to protect the battle at all cost including document nation before you can register to vote is exactly that. it's a boogieman. [speaking spanish] [laughter] >> okay? there have been no empirical evidence that we have been

harboring under in the united states for the last what, three, four decades, in the last four, five years the constant election being thrown in our faced no support, whatsoever, in social science. and as a result, the roll back of progressive reforms in states like florida, and roll back of progressive reforms elsewhere is in direct contrast to the needs to close that gap. so as a result, i say to all of us that we have a wonderful opportunity to do this now. a wonderful opportunity to assure that districts are recreated and that alone will not result in the shift of power. and i'll end with this. the last time i checked these numbers was about 7 or 8 years ago. i was writing an article in the voting rights act, nina and i did quite a bit of work on the voting rights act that occurred and that was the best things that happened in the last 10

years of the reauthorization that was actually signed by president bush in a white house ceremony that we all attended. there was that was a historical moment in the united states to be able to extend the most -- the strongest protections for voting rights that this country has ever known. section 5 jurisdictions were extended for 25 years. the bilingual assistance right was created for years. and it was a highlights for attorneys. when i was working for articles in that area of time i was focused on one particular number that struck me as some of the literature that i read. the numbers said that we were somewhere in the neighborhood of 493,000, excuse me, 490,000 some-odd elected officials in the united states. from dog-catcher to president. i'll let that number sit there for a while. 493,000 people are somehow elected in one way, shape or

form. .. [applause] >> thank you, juan. thank you to the extraordinary panel and really some of the leaders in this field, and we're

privileged to have them with us. think about your questions and we'll go around with microphones and collect those. juan, i want to talk about you. you talked about a shift in power, and i just wanted to mention a piece published by bloomberg, widely serklated, and -- circulated, and it talked about chicago. you are quoted in this piece. "black power wanes among his panic clout" and hispanics outnumber blacks of representation in major american cities, and yet the african-american community has twice as many elected officials in the house of representatives, and the just of this is there's winners and lossers and redistricting. how do you make sure that those who have traditionally been our allies in issues around poverty,

education, and immigration rights are not the losers in this redistricting effort? >> well, the main question is who are our allies; right? there's opportunities of election to represent candidates of our choice and one that speaks to our concerns. necessarily doesn't have anything to do with race. do they speak to our issues? is there vote record, track record something to hold up and are proud of? the first point of this is we have to talk continue sly to the leaders in the african-american community and support each other where we can, but also make sure opportunities to create distances in which la tee knows are present and creanted and assert over the population what's happening. we can take this further. in certain parts in the

northeast, there's changes in the hispanic population itself. we can't talk about this fully because of time. but say it about the puerto rican population in the northeast. they have a share of elected officials, but the population is shifting to more mexican and dominican. again, questions are the same. more mexicans come and more dominicans come, what's that mean for the electing official says? we have to make sure we speak on the same things, create joint maps where possible, and that's really our goal. where we can demonstrate unity among issues in substance in the reform and unity of our process and strategy, coalitions, unity districts, and mapping scenarios, we are much better position. >> nina, you talked about racial

polarized voting as an obstacle in redistricting. is that what you're referring to in >> well, there's voting that impedes african-american ability to left preferred candidates and there's polar rised voting for la -- tinos and it depends what area you're in and if they can prefer candidates as well. it's been critical to partner with organizations to anticipate what's coming in terms of redistricting, figure out if we can do maps that feature both of our goals in redistricting, and i have to say so far we have not found that this is a zero-sum gain -- game, game. latino games and redistricting are not coming at the expense of african-american representation in part because of sort of patterns of residential

concentrations, so we have -- we've had success working in coalitions, talking about maps together and pursuing agendas in tandem. >> you asked people to come forward if interested in filing a suit. you are critical of the illinois map. is there a suit to be filed? >> i think there will be lawsuits filed in illinois. that's pretty much what i can say. [laughter] >> okay. you talked about, you know, some of the lessons out of the census and two things in particular. one, the youthfulness of the population and this really 1 the future population, and i think all of us would agree and that very much is the montra about latinos as goes the community as goes the future of this country. you talked about the shift to the south, and yet at the same time, when you look at the south today, that's where some of the most restrictive immigration policies are coming out of

states precisely where there's the largest growth of latino population. some concern about what that means in terms of voter turnout next year, concern there has not been comprehensive immigration reform and that without that the levels of participation may actually be reduced. how do you put those two things together? the rise of the latino south with the restrictive policies and the impacts for 2012? >> well, i think it's actually no coincidence you're seeing the reaction to changing demographics to the south. in fact, it is a result of this historic american discomfort which changes with demographics, and the immediate reaction is declaring english the official language, do what we can to make life as uncomfortable as we can for the newcomers in our midst with regard to voter turnout. what we know about the demographic of the south is it's much more heavily immigrant than

texas, arizona, or california, so by virtue, there's less of an electorat in the south, and that's a population that will ma rture generation through generation as young people reach voting age and engage in naturalization campaigns and naturalize residents, and the need for immigration reform here is more so paramount than any other part of the country. building i'd also like to throw out there is it's not just about immigration when mobilizing the electorat. if you can vote, you are a citizen. you do not have a personal immigration to resolve. on your mind are issues like the economy, the recession, unemployment, underproiment, access to health care, wars in iraq and afghanistan, the fact there's family members there you want home, all these other

issues all americans are dealing with are issues that latino voters are dealing with. what we need to make sure is national candidates speak to latinos about the issues as well. we're not a single issue constituent. >> do you have any thoughts about the rise of restriction as policies out of the south and what that means as a civil rights lawyer? >> it's one of our biggest challenges, but it's nothing new to the history of the united states; right? that's is the most amazing thing. as we speak to the issues of immigration and language restriction policy and other restrictions that occur in times of economic crisis, we have to remember these things have been with us a long time. in the 1920s there were europeans with anti-immigrant his tear ricks and close to 30,000 people arrested in the streets of the united states speaking a language owner --

other than english. the point here is that many of these immigration groups who are now in the position of power and have quote-on-quote assimilated need to be reminded how the hysteria was visited upon their sons, that our country was grown and made better because of some of them and latinos share the same values everybody else does, to come here to work for good job, support our families, and contribute to this country. that's what makes this country great, but the challenge now, however, is we're constantly facing not only these policies at the local level, but there's a shift in how the courts look at the issues, and there's a court that's conservative now. we have to have representation and the most innovative claims we can use to go to court when necessary. >> you mentioned there's 490,000

elected positions and probably less than one and a half -- 1 #.5% is held by latinos. is there a target, a number, something that would be more reflective we should be considering as an ultimate goal for latino political representation? >> when you're so close to the bottom, anything is better. [laughter] look, i guess my point is this. we don't have -- we don't have the opportunity to go to court and say new jersey has 19% latinos, we want 19% of all state house seats. we don't have that opportunity. the laws do not require proportions. the law in very, very specifically to prohibit that notion to enter into the conscious of the judges, but our argument has not just be flt courtroom, but the argument is to the american public.

what exactly is wrong in having a legislature that reflects the racial class, working class demographics of any community? how is it possible to become a legislature that is so over represented -- thank you -- that is so overrepresented by the majority population, and that's what we're talking about. america should reflect the beauty of our diversity in corporate board rooms, school board, and in the white house, in congress, and everywhere else. if i'm arguing that we should have a better proportion, a better sense of what that means, and if we can use that to get there, so be it, but there's limits, and we can't get there by courtroom action, and now we have a moral issue to do this. >> we are almost out of time, and i want to come to the audience. as you prepare questions, nina, i just want to ask you about

california in particular, and there's a republican commentator, tony quinn, said the work of the commissioner may not have set out to disenfranchise latinos, but that was certainly the result so it was not by people misintentioned, but people who just didn't understand the demographic changes, and this came from a republican commentator. how do we make sure those responsible for drawing maps understand that we don't need to lit gait, that we actually have a process that recognizes the diversity and the sorts of goals that are articulated here. >> well i'm not sure what's going on in california with the commission, but they certainly are aware of the demographic information that they need to do redistricting. they had blenty of testimony, and they are designed to be aware and take those things into consideration. they have attorneys who are

advising them about their obligations under the voting rights act. the statute that created the commission created a series of priorities that includes compliance to the voting rights act right up there at the top with compliance to the constitution, and they have information. they have information, training, lawyers, and they have a mandate to comply with the voting rights act, and it is inexplicable to me how they came up with first draft plans that are so tremendously disenfranchising of the latino community. >> i'm going to turn to the audience, and any questions of the audience, i don't know if we have mics, but go ahead and stand up, and i'll repeat the question. introduce yourself if you don't mind. >> [inaudible]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] >> thank you. her point, a comment, is that it's not just about knew -- numeric representation, but having people who can actually put forward better government and better governance, and that's the work of leaders and why people are here precisely to do that. there's another question right here, and if you can make these questions, please. >> [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> so, for those of you who could not hear, it's a question about ensuring we represent the diversity of the la -- latino community and other groups. >> i'll take that on because i think that is, in fact, one of the greatest travesties happening now in california where the single greatest con

concentration of salvadors is disenfranchised by this independent commission. there's a neighbor in los angeles called pico union, why i grew up and where the national office is located. that neighborhood has been removed from the latino majority district and placed in a district with beverly hills, bel-air, and another. if a congressman receives a call from a salvador immigrant living near mcarthur park or a donor from beverly hills, who gets the call returned? that's what this commission is proposing. there's also a large salvador population in the san henando valley and hope the district that gets restored in 2011 that was drawn in 1991 and taken away

from the latino community in 2001 will be able to provide a void the community has in the valley, and we know in maryland, virginia, washington, d.c. area, the second largest concentration of central americans in the country, the kind of work being done there that we're able to reconfigure the districts. we are incredibly diverse, it's our richness, and many of the subnational groups in our community want to be able ensure they have a voice in the process. >> so i'm just going to go back to one point because we are ready to wrap up, and you made the point we're not a single issue voting block that it goes well beyond immigration and issues of opportunity and economic develop and jobs, ect.. when you look at the numbers, there's clearly this disconnect, and i come out of business, and we look at this community, and you say this really is the future for anybody who is in

business today, not only because of the demographic trends, but there's 1.2 trillion in buying power within the hispanic community. it is the group that has the fastest growth in terms of small business start yuchs, and -- startups, and yet we have the highest unemployment rates, highest dropout rates, work force training programs don't meet the needs of the work force of tomorrow as it relates to latinos. you do a tremendous amount of work in this area and it's demonstrated by macrotrends, but on the ground we're not preparing our population to be competitive as we move into the future. what sorts of things do you think can be done? i mean, clearly, a big question, but can be done that people are working on as well as the latino justice. what do we do to close the economic prosperity gap?

>> i'm sure that all of you will agree has to deal with investment in our young people, and that means investment in education. [applause] i moderated a session a few weeks ago sponsored by the caucus focusing on latino education, and this was held up in california and people were bemoaning the fact just at the moment that la latino youth were the majority in that state, nearly the majority in texas, they are 40% in arizona, and the list goes on. at that moment is the same moment we make drastic cuts in education. i asked the question is it a coincidence? i think that's something for us to ponder. is it a coincidence that at this moment we are disinvesting in our schools and education? i think that's a challenge for

all of us here to hold accountable our government to ensure we do not disinvest in the education of america's young people today no matter who they are. >> very good. [applause] we've actually run out of time and come to the end of our session. i just want to mention a couple of things, and unfortunately, we were not able to hit every single topic that we wanted to, but this really about turning numbers. i think precisely the numbers participated this morning is where we need to focus. it's both around redistricting, the legislative battles we have in front of us, but also ensuring that we elevate the turnout rates that people who are elected eligible to vote, vote, and i wanted to pick up on something that was said, and i hope all of you take this with you as we move into the next sessions. he talked about a sustained civic engagement campaign that goes beyond just the years when

national elections or the mid year elections are held. this requires us to create, as you said, a culture of participation, and i would hope that all of you who clearly are elected that you understand the value of that will work to make sure that we actually have those outreach efortses especially into our younger populations to make sure that we do change the course of those two lines and begin to close both the eligibility and the turnout numbers, so with that, i wanted to thank the panel, very informative, and you got really three of the leading experts variable -- available for you after this session. thank you very much, everybody. [applause]

>> the center for american progress monday hosted a discussion on the african-american vote in the 2012 elections. speakers include maryland democratic congresswoman donna edwards and jonathan capehart. this is about 90 minutes. >> today in washington, and you know, because i represent a congressional district right outside the city here, i always love august. the traffic is so much better, and i get to go to things and hear a lot of really wonderful interesting panels and events, and so i appreciate being here. the topic today is really

fascinating one, and i want to share with you my perspective as someone who represents maryland's 4th congressional district comprising the two counties right outside of washington, d.c., and i want to tell you about those two counties because i think that they mirror what is happening in metropolitan areas, what's happening all across the country. prince george's county is a majority african-american county by population. we have had really strong growth over this last decade like many counties among our his panic and latino populations. month come rights act county also bordering the district of columbia is now a majority county. maryland like many states is well on its way over this next decade to becoming a majority-minority state. i think those are the realities of the demographics all across our country. now, i happen to be so pleased

to represent two counties that also from an economic perspective, many people in both of these counties are doing extremely well. probably the population in prince george's county is not as reflective of the african-american population compared to other counties of its type, but it enjoys a level of success both politically and economically that is very difference than other places in the country. nonetheless, some of the same concerns that we have in prince george's county and growing areas of changed demography are problems that other communities across this country face, and so when faced with the question about 2012 and what the demographics suggest and then

what beyond that, i have to look to those two counties as a way to reflect what may be happening around the country. now, i am always loathed when speaking with anyone about what's going on in african-american communities to speak on behalf of those communities because while many of us share a lot of concerns and feel some of the same challenges, we are not a monolith, and i think that's a mistake made politically both by democrats and by republicans. now, if you ask me what are concerns in my community, here's what i can tell you. i can tell you that those concerns mirror concerns nationally. they are concerns about jobs and job creation, about the relative disperties between those who earn a lot and those who don't earn so much. they are the same challenges of growing your children and educating them and sending them on to colleges and universities

and trade schools and concerns about whether those young people will be able to find jobs in the larger economy. what i can tell you as well is people have in my community a majority african-american congressional district that across both of these lines of these two different yet very similar counties that people are also concerned about other very mundane things like transportation policy and how they get to and from work and around their communities, and they are concerned about whether their air is clear and clean and whether their water is clear and clean. they believe that our national policies need to be more reflective of the broader communities that we represent. now, are these african-american concerns or american concerns? i think that there's a, you know, there's a mixed question there. i read just over this last

weekend there's been a lot of articles written about whether president obama is going to enjoy the support among african-american populations, among those on the left of the political scale and that kind of enthusiasm over this next election. what i would share with you is i think the frustrations that people feel are frustrations that all americans are feeling in this really tough economy, and that whomever is the -- is -- if president obama is reelected, if there is, you know, another candidate on the other side that rises to the floor, that they will have to address those concerns, and so i'm always challenged then to think about well, what is -- what are those demographics then mean for african-americans? have we, because there's an african-american in the white house, is that changing the way that we think about our policies

and politics? does it mean a difference in terms of the way we think about our civil rights, our rights as american people? i don't think, you know, i mean, i love president obama, i like what he's doing sometimes, but i'm critical of what he's doing, and those policies, but no more critical than i would be if anybody else occupied the white house. ..

>> the community that we describe as african-american is also african. it's more of a black community and not just an african-american community if you get the line i'm trying to cross here. in one part of the county represented in montgomery county, we had huge growth of african immigrants in parts of both of these counties. that also impacts the way that we think about our local politics and about policies. it means that in representing a community as diverse as i do, that the hispanic population and the african-american population and the asian and south asian population and combine that with the white population are concerned about other issues, too. they're concerned about immigration and the impact of immigration on our larger economy. not concerned so that they want to constrain that but certain

that they want to manage it. and i think that, you know, these discussions can play out in many different ways in different communities and i only share with you the way that happens in mine. some of asked given the african-american community's high unemployment what the expectations are among african-americans in this next election, a difference in

the economy. there are african-americans who came in to -- came -- who are unemployed in this recession who as the economy grows, they're going to get back into the work force. but we have a couple of different economies going on, too, and i think that this is a concern that is raised among african-american political leaders and raised in communities when it comes to unemployment and when we challenge the administration as we would challenge any administration to focus on job creation, you have those people who will go back into the economy, across-the-board, and as the economy recovers and i believe that it will. but you also have a core of chronic unemployment that didn't just take place with this last recession but that's been going

on for a couple of recessions in some communities. in african-american communities among the hispanic population. that requires a different set of strategies than just getting the economy rolling again. and so some of us who are members of the congressional black caucus, i mean, there is hardly a week that goes by that one of us is not asked about whether or not president obama is doing enough for black people. i think president obama is doing just what he needs to do and we could argue about how there needs to be more here and there and how we would all do it differently for all americans. and i think our job and part of our responsibility representing majority african-american districts in the congressional black caucus is to challenge this administration as we would challenge any other administration to do more and what's right by all of our communities and so what does that mean for me? well, for 2012 it probably

really means focusing on creating jobs that grow the economy overall backup train people for the skills that they're going to need for the 21st century. that job training and job creation that recognizes that the way that we're going to rebuild this economy is not with the skills that we left in the 20th century. that would be a challenge for any president. it is especially a challenge for this one, as he begins to define an agenda going forward for 2012. and just like everybody else across the country is going to be asking those questions of the two presidential nominees from the parties, we will be asking that question of president obama. i think that he has a cogent response to those questions about an economy that he inherited. i think he has a cogent response about some circumstances in our institutions that he has

inherited but he does have to have a response to that. when this larger economy begins to work again, i think by investing in things like our infrastructure, rebuilding our roads and our bridges and investing in mass transit, that these are things that will inure to the benefit of african-americans so that we can appropriately ask the question about whether this president or any president is doing what's right by all of our communities. i would note that one thing that resonated -- and i was out at coffee shops in my congressional district just talking to people in the grocery store, too. that's what we do in august. but as i was -- as i was out, people were really cognizant of the fact that they thought that the president was fighting for pell grants. well, why is a fight for pell grants something that's actually a relatively small program within the larger federal budget so important to african-american families? well, it's important because we have a generation of

professionals now who have benefited, like i have, from the pell grant program and we have a growing generation that wants to send their kids to school. they're facing to the extent that they own homes, that they're facing lower equity in their homes against which to borrow to send their children to school. and for whom pell grants are a really important component along with student loans about the way that their children, their young people can achieve in this century and so they look at the defense of something like that, like pell grants and the defense of social security and medicare and these basic safety net programs as a defense for a community that really struggles and so those are the questions that i think will be asked for 2012 and i believe that -- i think republicans, frankly, have missed a mark when it comes to reaching out to the african-american community.

so, for example, in the recent debt ceiling debate, to hear the rumor milf a gop strategy that would cut away pell grants and student loans, it's not that african-americans won't vote for republican candidates just because they're republican, but they will look at what the issues are. and what the substance is and that debate in order to make a decision about whether someone is standing for them or not. that has always been true and it is especially true in 2012. and so i would argue to those who are, you know, seeking to, you know, eek out whatever percentage of a vote it is that they -- that they will need, to look at the policies themselves and to argue those, whether that's to an african-american community or it's to the majority population. and it's on that basis, i think, that -- i know in my community

it's on that basis that we'll make our political decisions. now, the very fact that one party or another supports spending on pell grants and on student loan availability and on child nutrition and on affordable housing and for a safety net programs like -- and retirement security for health care, speaking to those issues there, speaking to job creation, those are ways that you develop a relationship with a community, and i know that's true among african-american populations. most assuredly it's true for all americans. and whomever those candidates or whatever the political party is, it speaks to those concerns will gain the support of -- you know, of those political candidates. and we're not here to discuss

the party politics per se but it is important for us to really focus on what it is that draws people to one party or another. and that goes deeply to the question of whether or not one party or other is responding to issues of concerns to communities and to issues and concerns to african-americans. i think i'm going to stop there. i will just say in closing, however, that again african-americans and the people that i represent in my congressional district aren't of one mind about their politics, but they are of one mind about what it is that's needed to improve their communities. and i think that the challenge for 2012 and going forward in terms of our relationship with hispanic communities, our

relationship with other minority communities is to be of a voice about things that are going to lift communities up. and people are very sensitive to that. and they know -- and they know those things. they know when it comes time to putting food on the table and somebody who has to go out to find a job, what skills it takes to do that, what skills it takes to be in the work force and whether or not there are policies in place that enable them to do as the president says, to have all americans take advantage of the american dream. and so let me take a few minutes to take just a few questions. and i will -- you know, i will just share with you that for all that's been written about -- and i had a call just a few days ago from someone saying, well, the support among african-americans for president obama has dropped to historic lows. and i would urge them to come out to the fourth congressional district because my experience is that has not been true.

thank you. [applause] >> thank you, congresswoman. we will take a few questions from the audience. if you could please wait for the microphone and state your name and what organization you're with. do you have any questions? >> i have no organization, but i am part of the '60s and i remember when people were dying who seen their jobs, who seen their homes fighting to get the right to vote. it seems there's far too many african-americans now, heirs of that freedom fighter heritage don't vote. i live in virginia. i do believe that it would be interest of the black community to get out the vote for people who don't even know what a pell grant. places like danville, we have mr. cantor representing us. we have mr. cuccinelli

representing us now. it seems to me that if african-american communities had voted in as many numbers in the last state elections that elected the tea party candidates as they did in the last presidential election, we would have had a very different outcome. thank you. >> in other words, what will people like yourself and others who have a public voice do to get african-americans registered to vote and to the post in the state and national election. >> let's be very clear in the 2008 election across-the-board, i think, that we saw a huge voter turnout among african-americans because there was a candidate at the top of the ticket that spoke to the concerns and needs and challenges, hopes, dreams and opportunities of the american people. and of african-american people. i think candidates matter, quite frankly. i think that issues matter.

and when -- and i will say this as a challenge to many of my democratic colleagues is well that when we speak to the issues that are of concern to people, whether those are african-american people or others -- because the challenge in this country isn't just as you suggest that african-americans aren't voting, americans aren't voting. let's be clear about that. and so i think that the challenge poach the challenge is making sure we have candidates that are more than just talk but suggest they will make a meaningful opportunity to work on things that are of a concern. i would say working on things that are of concern to working people. i know what it's like to get up in the morning and to struggle to pay the rent, the mortgage, the electric bill and to juggle those bills the way american families do. and i also know that when people understand that we understand as elected leaders, as those who

are seeking public office that what they're facing every day, they'll come out and vote for you. and so our challenge, whether you're at the top of the ticket as the president will be or whether you're running for congress is to speak to the needs of the american people, speak to the needs and if you're representing african-american people and hispanics and latinos and asians and white people and everybody in between, speak to the needs of working people and people will show up to vote. >> one right there in the back in the middle. >> thank you. i'm marta steel from op-ed news. and i've always said since i became an activist for election integrity that if everyone in this country who could vote did vote, there would never be a republican in office.

[laughter] >> again. [laughter] >> but my immediate concern is, what percentage of people in your district vote and what is the congressional black caucus doing about getting people out to vote in general? and they're working against an awful lot of machinery including corruption at the level of computerized voting machines. so the effort really has to be redoubled? >> listen, in this country, we are not a nation that requires people to vote. there are some countries where voting is a requirement. it's a constitutional requirement. it is not here in the united states. it's actually up to people who run for elective office to, as i said before, to be responsive to the needs of communities, to encourage them to vote.

but we also have to vote with systemic issues that gets in the way of people being able to exercise their franchise in the way that they need. i will point in particular to the unbelievable number of voter identification laws that are cropping up all across in this country that in effect operate in a way that i believe is designed to suppress votes. and particularly to suppress votes of people -- of people of color in a whole number of states. i think it's a challenge for our democracy to make sure we get rid of these barriers that gets in the way of being able to vote. i'm very proud to come from a state of maryland where we in our last election cycle finally instituted the ability to vote over a couple of week period. and i have to tell you for our off-cycle elections, it was refreshing to see people who didn't have to wait until a given tuesday in the evening after work to try to make it to

daycare and then on to a polling place in order to be able to exercise their franchise. they could do it on monday or tuesday or wednesday or saturday and they could do it all along. i actually think we need more of that. there has been, you know, some suggestion that somehow there's than massive voter fraud going on around the country and that's the reason that we need these laws in place, these voter id laws, ways in which you have to present or check your birth certificate. i don't know about you all, but i don't carry my birth certificate anywhere. and so i think that we actually have to reverse that trend and, in fact, open up opportunities for people to be able to exercise their franchise in a way that's meaningful to them. and that doesn't have anything to do with machinery. it has to do with a system. and, you know, there are reasons that, you know, i'm one who's been a big proponent and i always have been, long before i came into congress of actually

opening up opportunities for people to participate and exercise their civic responsibilities. and that means actually expanding opportunities to vote. well, you can imagine sometimes there are people who actually hold elective office who don't mind the idea of having a very small electorate with which to deal because it's a little shaky as a candidate having to respond to everybody. having to knock on a whole bunch of doors. having to make phone calls at a lot of different places and stop in at a whole different businesses that you've never done before and that's not good for democracy and we want to open up the marketplace of people who can show up and vote at many different places and exercise their franchise in the way that they see fit. and i don't think that we run any risk at all -- i can't even remember what state i was, you know, listening to somebody talking about allegations of voter fraud and it was, you

know, literally, you know, hundreds of thousands of votes cast and like .1% were identified as potential voter fraud, not even actual voter fraud and so i think that is a suggestion that i believe is designed to suppress votes and it results in systemic policies that gets in the way of people exercising their franchise. i think everybody who wants to vote should be able to do that. you know, and if the age limit is over 18, that's -- you know, that's fine with me, too. but make sure you can do it -- you can do it at a grocery store. you can do it at the board of elections. it doesn't matter to me. >> one more question. anyon anyone? >> it's going to be a very important issue in this election and you can't wait until the last month before the election to get -- have all your gotb

plan in action. the laws have already been passed in these states as to registration, we know already it's the block, the minority vote. and i challenge the black caucus and the latino caucus to formulate a plan now so that people will have those appropriate ids. i have asked this question over and over about the early voting. what type of identification do you have to xerox your driver's license in order to vote in that election early in that election? that question should be answered now. and formulate a plan now. i also challenge both caucuses stop talking with politics. i realize all of you like your job. i realize the tea party, yes, they want to stay here but what the people need is for you to talk to them.

remember the last last democratic president, what was the key to clinton? he always knew how to connect on four different subjects. people don't understand debt crisis. they don't understand free trade with china. they only understand what the price of food is in wal-mart. and you have to talk with wal-martis and bring it down. in the district of columbia the machines didn't work. it didn't work after gore and nobody did anything about it. if you don't have a trail on those votes, you'll lose it. >> i know this is the last question we'll be able to take. let me close as to the election i think that you're right.

i think that we have to have i think we can have a strong turnout from a whole range of folks who comprised the 2008 electorate and we need to make sure that they are as invigorated for 2012. but that also means that we have to have a strong electorate, i have to work for that vote. l[laughter] >> we have to say to the young people, to speak to them about their concerns, about their concerns for jobs and being able to take advantage in this work force. we have to speak to them about our desire and what the differences are between those who want to make sure that they

are able to get an education and those who are working against that. so we need young people voting. we need a high voter voter turnout among latinos. the congressional black caucus has actually been doing quite a lot on this issue of what's happening systematically in some of these states around voter id. not all of these laws are actually fully in place. and some of them are being challenged in court and so that fight is actually not over. even with that, we do still have a lot of work to do to challenge people to come out to vote. but the way that we do that is to speak to their concerns. and -- i mean, none of us will get excited about going out to vote if people don't understand what it is that we're interested in and what we're concerned about. that is sort of the hallmark of

the way i think one wins an election. but we also have to do what we need to do both in congress in raising the visibility i think of the issue of jobs in this country. the number 1 driver -- what's on people's mind right now is whether they and their children are able to survive in this economy and survive it and get a job where they can get up in the morning and take care of themselves and their families. the candidates who speak to those issues are local candidates or national candidates are going to be the ones that invigorate the kind of energy that it's going to take for this 2012 election cycle. that said, as, you know, part of this discussion that we're having today is about the changing demographics for 2012 and beyond. and what that means about our politics and our policies. what it means about the kinds of candidates who are running in

elections all across this country at the national and at the local level. it's reflective in how it is that the lines are going to be redrawn for redistricting in some states. and states like mine where it isn't just about the congressional lines but it's about all of those local lines that then become the pipeline for candidates that are more representative of the communities than they are now. this is a really defining time, i think, for the american public to actually embrace who we're becoming. we're getting there more people have to enjoy the opportunity and participate in the political and civic life of this country and that begins with us, i think, in 2012 as this electorate and its changed demographics is reflected. and so i just want to thank you all very much. and i will be looking at our panel on as it's aired on

c-span. and encourage all of you, if you're writing about and thinking about and talking about 2012, you have to talk about the way in which communities of color need to be and should be increasingly engaged in our politics and our civic life. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, congresswoman. >> i will do some quick introductions to my right is pull director prize journalist jonathan capehart and he's been editor of the post of 2007 and

he is an msnbc and substitute host on the brian lehrer show and at with, nyc. to his right is dr. kim williams and before joining the faculty of portland state in 2011 she taught at harvard's kennedy school. her research and teaching interests covers issues of race and immigration in american politics. she's the author of mark one more, civil rights in a multiracial america and numerous articles and book chapters and last but not least, jamal simmons is part of a washington, d.c., consulting firms where he teaches to nonprofit clients. in the 2010 congressional elections he was the democratic political analyst for cbs news and before that a fixture on cnn during the 2008 elections. please join me in welcoming our panelists today. [applause] >> i was going to start off by talking about the economy and

we'll have plenty of time to get to that. but i wanted to talk about voter turnout and voter support since that was something that was brought up in the last q & a session. 2008 was, obviously, a historic election for many part. it was the first african-american election and we saw a drop in 2010 and i want to ask the panel in 2012, do you see a way to recapture sort of the excitement of 2008? will the issues on the table will that be enough to drive the people to come out, specifically african-americans to come out in the numbers they did in 2008 given what we saw happen in 2010? and, kim, i would like to start with you. >> sure. well, i think that there are a number of structural reasons that we can look at to explain why voter turnout has increased over time. i think that get out the vote efforts have been -- have improved. i also think sort of social networking tools has a lot to do

with that as well and on one hand we can look at 2008 historical election in terms of turnout others as well but can we recapture that? i don't know. i think that i tend to expect that voter turnout will go down. i think that in part it will be because -- well, probably two reasons. one is about sort of disillusioned democrats who feel that president obama has not really delivered for them on the one hand and on the other hand you got a really weak slate of republican candidates that i don't know that the republicans can find themselves -- can rows themselves to get to the polls for this bunch of candidates. [laughter] >> jamal, any thoughts on that? >> well, yeah. will it be like in 2008? i don't think you can ever experience your first kiss twice. [laughter] >> yeah. >> so the excitement that comes along with that election is just going to be really hard to replicate to manufacturer mechanically. there's a group of people, i

think, to pay attention to who as excited as they were about 2008 didn't get a chance to participate and those were high school-age children across the country who really went out and they volunteered and did a lot of work. they're now in college. they also haven't had -- about unemployment. they haven't had that fight or the ones who maybe were in high school and now they're starting in their first, you know, job if they're not in college. so there's a population there for the candidates to go after -- i think for the president to go after that i think will make a difference but if you look at what's happened on the unemployment level around the country, i come from michigan, and detroit, and, you know, what you're seeing in a place like michigan are these manufacturing job losses that have occurred not just in the last four years but in the last couple decades there's a lot of people who voted for president obama not necessarily for an individual policy reason. they voted for him because there was something about their heart.

there was something -- an aspirational goal that they saw. and so it's going to be a challenge, i think, for the campaign to go back and connect to them on an emotional level to get them to have another reaction that makes them turn out. >> i agree with everything -- everything they said. i especially like jamal's analogy. >> yes. [laughter] >> the other thing also keep in mind that ginned up the excitement it was not that president obama was running for president but remember that knock down drag out primary fight that happened between then senator clinton and then senator obama. there was excitement in the democratic base for months. and once it was finally figured out, people ran to the polls. i think jamal raises a good point about voting with your heart. it's easier to vote with your heart when you hear someone

speaking of your ideal and vision of america. it's another thing to go into the voting booth in 2012 when that person inspired so much hope and hope for change in the country when that person appearance record to run on. and has circumstances beyond his control that have been smacking him up the side of the head before he went into office. it would be the challenge for the administration and it would be the challenge for any incumbent administration because this administration is so historic and to meaningful for a lot of people on a a lot of levels that i think that, one, i agree with kim that probably turnout will go down for the reasons that she said. but also i think people will just -- they'll be -- who's the woman at the q & a that the president did and she said she was weary. that she loved the president but that she was weary. and i think that then it was -- not a novel thing but it was the

first time we heard it articulated. i would argue that now there are a whole lot more people who feel the way she does. that they are weary and the challenge is going to be for the president to pull those weary people into the polls to vote for him. >> i think we look at the -- we look at the african-american voting percentage for democrats as something that is pretty steady, you know, the president is getting over 90, 92, 94% of african-americans voting for him. but the african-american vote is still persuadable. it may be tough for republicans to persuade african-americans to vote for the republicans but democrats have to persuade them to vote and not find something else to do on election day. you have to constantly be in a persuasion mode with african-americans about showing up. >> well, that was going to be my next question about the economy. and whether or not the times that we're in, if it leaves room for that somebody else to come in and make a persuasive argument. i know that you have strong opinions about that. but when you look at everything

from the debt ceiling and the satan sandwich and the s&p downgrades, and the double unemployment among african-americans, your paper did a poll recently showing that african-americans support for the president on the economy has dropped from 77% in october to just over 50% now. so is there an opportunity for someone on the right to come in and give a compelling narrative, don't give me that look. [laughter] >> about why. i have to ask. there is a question. is there an opportunity for someone to come in and say, hey, this economy, this president isn't working for you. i have something over here that you should look at. >> i think that republicans certainly do have a point. the economy is terrible. it's really bad for african-americans, for all americans but the fact is that, that question assumes that republicans are actually going to come out and compete for the black vote. i mean, i think what actually the way that this works is that the way the republicans -- the gop deals with black voters is two things.

one of them is about -- they're trying to appeal to moderate white swing voters and make them seem as if they're more moderate than they are. the republican party, i think that's one way in which they sort of handle black voters. and the other way is that they're basically trying, i think, to demoralize black voters and keep them away from the polls as the congresswoman seemed to indicate when she was talking about voter fraud. and so these concerns about voter fraud and so my thing is that i do not see the gop making any really concerted effort to compete for the black vote. >> it's going to be tough. one, because there's an african-american in the white house. that doesn't guarantee that black voters will go out and click the lever for them again in 2012. but on top of that, you're looking at a republican party, as the congresswoman said, you know, black voters are persua persuadable as jamal said if

they're ringing you in your ears and getting you on the economics, when you start looking down the list of other issues, you get really uncomfortable and that's why i think that the sell that the republican party has, as much as they want to reach out to african-american voters is a whole wrath of other issues behind that that i think black voters generally speaking just can't get behind, can't support. >> do you really believe they want to reach out to black voters? >> i do. i do think -- there are people out there within the republican party who do want to reach out to african-american voters. i think the problem is that the base of the party couldn't care less. and you need that base in order to get elected. >> and the reason i say that i believe it is because there are any republican strategist that you talk with off-camera that they recognize that in order for their party to be competitive over the next generation they

have got to do better with minority votes. now, do they want all african-american voters, no, that scares some of the other voters they got to get. they take some church members. and bush did in 2004, they are going off upper income americans who have higher incomes who care about taxes and schools and that. with barack obama it's tough because he's such an icon so it will be hard to pull people away and say, you know, you vote against martin luther king, you know, there's a question for republican voters. there's a question about republican minority voting elections without talking about latinos because really that is the growth market for both parties when they look at the electorate. latinos are growing of the percentage of the american electorate population and they

also are much more swing voters. and if we look for many of them who are catholics, some of the issues is more in line with more the republicans are. the fundamental issue of every election is about trust. and if people don't trust that you ultimately have their best interest at heart, then they're not going to vote for you. and even though you may particular off 15 issues that make sense at the end of the day they think well, but you actually don't like people who look like me. isn't okay that you we are alike on the other issues. >> i want to raise on the latino vote and being more of a swing vote. does that hurt african-americans because we are still seen in the pocket of the democratic party. take it back for good, bad or african-americans what about african-americans as a political entity? wouldn't it be better if we felt we had to be more courted than we are now. >> it would be nice if we feel like we could get more court.

i would say -- i would challenge african-american voters to not look at it as a zero-sum prop zhigs that it's not african-american vote versus latino vote. in fact, you're starting to see efforts by some african-american leaders like al sharpton is a key one, you know, who has gone down to arizona and done marches who went to puerto rico on the issue that we've got to find these bridge issues so that you can't drive a wedge between the communities based, you know, to say -- pit them against each other. so that's really going to be the challenge. i think if we get into the spiral of us versus them, then you still have a 45% block of the population that gets to run everything. >> i also think that, yes, the latino vote has been a swing vote compared to the african-american vote but at the same time something like 67% of latinos voted for president obama; correct? i think it's something like that. and when you look at the trends over time what you see is the republican party has been garnering a smaller and smaller share of the latino vote in the

last two, three, four, five election cycles and they've got a real problem with latinos because of their stance on immigration. and unless they flip their script some kind of way, my sense is that the trend looking forward is going be that perhaps the latino vote becomes increasingly democratic although people have said that over time. it flips back and forth. you can't say anything for sure but certainly at this point i think that immigration is a real problem for the gop if they want to attract latino votes and latinos are the growing -- fastest growing sector of the electorate. >> right. well, to go back to your point of african-americans needing to be persuaded to vote for democrats. i've seen on the few interviews, some feel there needs to be a black agenda and they're disappointed in this administration for not putting one out there. the other side of that coin is that, well, if you improve the economy for everybody, that

includes african-americans and a rising tide lifts all boats. so do you think that being more forceful out there saying this is our agenda to help specifically the black community would help the president with african-americans? would it hurt him with other people? where do you fall on that line? >> you mean the president himself going out there saying, this is my black agenda. [laughter] >> just let me be clear? >> okay. the administration. >> okay. even still, even still i would -- >> this is the question that's out there. >> i know the question that's out there and i pushed back hard on it, against people saying that the president -- why doesn't he have a black agenda and what is his jobs agenda? and he's president of the united states. you know, he is the leader of this entire country. if you want him to be -- guaranteed to be a one-term president you demand that he put forth tomorrow in a big

ceremony, here is my black agenda. [laughter] >> because -- >> that would be right after the hip hop barbecue. >> yes, right after that. no, at the hip hop barbecue. [laughter] >> i think the president -- his message is the right one. that if you want african-americans -- just americans to be put back to work, you know, here's this agenda that i'm trying to do for all americans. health care, here's what i'm trying to do for all americans and here's who will benefit, most likely disproportionately people of color for the health care law. i think folks who are demanding that he have a defined agenda are doing him a disservice because what will end up happening -- and i got into this with professor michael eric dyson on his radio show who was pushing this. i said i guarantee you if he were to do that, see, he's siding with the blacks. he is doing all these things and pitting us against them and he's polarizing and that afternoon

there was a republican congressman who accused the president of doing exactly that on some bill that i can't even remember and i don't remember it because the argument was so ludicrous. but, yes, i'm against that. >> okay. very clear. >> i think that's clear. [laughter] >> i'm with you. i think it's political suicide to try to step out with some sort of black agenda at this point or really at any point and i think also it really -- it kind of militates against his persona in what he told us he was from the beginning. and that goes to the trust issue that jamal was talking about. >> it's also -- the black agenda -- i mean, what is the black agenda? [laughter] >> so if we want to have that conversation, that can have another entire order to talk about that. the difference today versus -- for the african-americans versus other communities like the lgbt community or the women's communities -- particularly, the

lgbt communities there's very clearly defined problems, hurdles they are trying to get dismantled. for african-americans, it's hard to find an actual legal -- a law that is standing in the way of african-american progress. when you have a are implementations of laws, enforcement of laws. you have wealth problems. you have job problems, health care. but an actual law that targets african-americans and prevents them from participating in american society is not -- it's not like it is for the lgbt community. for them they can go in and they can make a movement about don't ask, don't tell. while i don't think it's smart for him to come out, he has to empower people who are outside of his administration who can go out and talk about the benefits of what he's been doing for african-americans. you need to talk about the billion dollars that he spent in a black college.

you need to talk about the fact that the stimulus money that went to plug the economic holes in state and local governments for the unemployed. americans worked for state, federal and local governments. so when you stop the layoffs in state and local governments you're keeping black people in jobs. so somebody has to go out and tell that story on his behalf. i do agree, it should be him. [laughter] >> but you know what? the president has, i think, and the administration has the problem you just talked about in a whole lot of communities. he's done a lot for the lbj community. that the community doesn't even know because it's not the marquee, okay. he got don't ask, don't tell done and everybody is focused on doma and on the little wonky things that he has done but for folks that want doma done and folks living in nonurban areas for whom that one little thing has improved their lives. >> it's ironic in a lot of ways

he has narrative problems because who would have thought that this president would have problems communicating the narrative. but there are problems in the respects that you just mentioned, in terms of explaining the debt crisis, the debt ceiling on so many different issues it seems to come up we wonder -- or i wonder, you know, where is the connection? are you explaining this to people? what's the story that you're going to tell us to help us to understand it and to help us understand what you're going to do about it. >> okay. i want to switch gears a little bit and go back to those on the right. and you had touched on social issues. in the past we have seen republicans in the gop tried to use rights for glbt and abortions and separate african-americans from democrats. i was at the naacp conference, as were you and we missed each other and there was a panel on lgbt rights and the president ben jealous attended and that

was actually a big deal. and through my anecdotal conversations with people there, it seems like, you know, a tide is changing within our community. and so these social issues that they use to divide us are they maybe a thing of the past? are they heading that way? am i naive? anyone? >> i don't know -- i don't think you're naive. i just think that the way events are working, the right doesn't seem to want to focus on those issues so much for one second to the side here. in 2010 it was all about the economy, all about running against obamacare, all about pushing the fact that the economy was in the toilet. of course, once a lot of them got in, suddenly abortion came roaring back. and lots of other initiatives on gay issues. while the right is focused on the economy and downplaying social issues, like you said, the fact that there is this lgbt

conference within the naacp says to me that disparate communities under the democratic umbrella are recognizing the fact that if they're going to advance the causes they believe in, they must work together. so african-americans and the gay community must work together, african-americans and latinos have to work together if they want to ensure that the gains that have been made continue. >> i think there's -- there's two issues here. one is even on the right, some of these -- some of these attacks on gays and lesbians don't have the same resonance that they once had had younger evangelicals just don't respond to these issues the same way that their parents and grandparents did. so it's losing some of the punch even on the right. and the african-american community, the more the people talk about fairness and just treating people the way you would want to be treated it's a

pretty powerful argument. there's some argument that turns african-americans off who are more church-going and when you have the conversation about fairness it becomes something that tend to react to very positively and i think that's what started to happen. >> i also think the psychology around state and local initiatives that's a really different psychology than the psychology of presidential elections and so i think a lot of african-american voters are very forgiving of their elected officials and i just don't think those issues will really stand in the way of them voting for president obama. and then on the other hand you also have to look at and say he hasn't really delivered fully for those communities. i mean, in terms of gay rights and don't ask, don't tell, doma, he hasn't really done everything that a lot of gay rights activists would like to him to do. he hasn't delivered on immigration reform and if he does so, i don't think it will be until after this election.

so some of those wedge issues i think are going to be sort of set back for a while. at least another couple of years. and also just that sort of difference between how presidential elections work versus the sort of state and local battles you get in initiatives in initiative voting. >> broadly speaking, to go back to what johnson said in the beginning, the other thing about elections and this is true, president obama's biggest card is who the republican nominee. in every election it takes a horse to beat a horse. if you don't have a thoroughbred coming out of the republican stable it's going to be tougher for them to take on someone who's such a good campaigner as president obama is. so it's -- right now we're judging the president against -- >> i'm sorry. >> it's a question literally. >> and there's no thoroughbred in the stable on the republican side. >> on the republican side, is there? >> i don't see one yet.

[laughter] >> but it's going to be very hard -- it's going to be very hard to see how this works out. if you -- once you begin -- right now we're comparing barack obama, this is true of all the progressive communities. we're comparing barack obama versus our perfect ideal to what progressive democratic liberal president we would like to see in office. at some point you're going to have to compare barack obama versus mitt romney or sarah palin or michele bachmann or, you know, rick perry. one of those. but one of those people will be the other person on the other side of the coin and that's a very different conversation to have. >> that is true. i want talk about something we were discussing in the green room and that is racism. it's hard to have a conversation about the african-american vote without bringing this up. in 2008 you saw some very heated rhetoric happening out there on the campaign trail and you've seen some since the president has been in office. now, in this post-racial society that we're in and i did use air

quotes. >> for those listening on 90.1, c-span radio, i feel like it's a conversation that not many people are comfortable having or don't want to have and i think that the majority of people who disagree with the president disagree with him strictly on policy. or because of his policies or because he's a democrat. i don't think we can say for sure that there aren't people out there who disagree with him because of the color of their skin or that because he has such wide support among african-americans and i just worry about what rhetoric is coming in 2012. if what we've been seeing over the past couple of years, i feel like there could be some stuff happening underground that's going to be very ugly. something tied to the voter id laws that are going on. so i just want to get your thoughts on that. >> look, i've been afraid for 2012 since 2008 finished.

[laughter] >> and what this campaign -- this upcoming campaign is going to be like. i mean, when you have after he was elected the person who sent out the watermelon patch card who then followed that up with something else, something else loony, not the same person but from the same district, we're going to see really nasty images. we're going to hear some nasty rhetoric and i'm not saying from the gop nominee or any of the candidates. but they have lots of supporters. last week i wrote a blog post about how i wanted the president to get out there and start doing things that would make the folks on the other end of pennsylvania avenue start to fear him in the sense that he's president of the united states and he's willing to go to the mat for what he believes in. and -- >> even if he loses. >> even if he loses. >> which i think is coming. but the emails that i got back from the tea party -- the headline was, it's time for the

tea party to fear the president. >> was this the kaiser thing. [laughter] >> ultimately, someone wrote a blog post that said -- jonathan capehart wants barack obama to murder the tea party people. oh, my god. [laughter] >> but i got this one email from someone and a lot of the emails i get from tea party folks and not to say that all tea party people are this unhinged, but they're racially tinged. and this one went, flat out there, "n" word, you and your "n" word president and you're going down and i'm thinking of writing a piece on this. we're going to -- no one i don't think will come out right out and say it but i do think that we're going to see and hear things that will make us whip back and think, oh, my god! what kind of country are we in? >> right. and is the onus on those was us outside of the administration to speak to that? because i don't know that they're going to touch any of

that. >> i don't think they would -- i don't think they would touch it and i don't think they should. but the fact that there are lots of people out there watching and literally waiting for it to happen, i think, need to jump out there and push back on it like the guy -- that congressman who talked about, you know, used this phrase tar baby. people pushed back on that really hard. that has to keep happening, nonstop. >> great. >> well, all i have to say is welcome. you got your hate mail -- your first racially tinged. it's probably your first. [laughter] >> this one particular thing -- it was single spaced 10-space font from this guy that was filled with all this. >> what did you say? >> you got one from him too. >> that issue was alive in 2008. i think it will be alive again in 2012, in a pretty big way. but there are a lot of people who don't vote for democrats already. i mean, you know, when lyndon

johnson signed the civil rights bills he said i'm foregoing the south for democrats in the next generation. there are a lot of people who left the democratic party precisely on this issue. and when president clinton was in office, they treated him really badly over this issue. barack obama in office, he's going to get treated really badly over this issue. i think with him being an african-american, the intensity level is higher and people are more emotional about it. but it's an issue that he's certainly going to have to face. and people outside will have to try to bat it past. >> i also think that it's worth just mentioning the issues at play. we're not in a post-racial issue. again the air quotes but at the same time we are at an era of unprecedented uncertainty about what race really is. and i think that the president certainly embodies that. i think he's a black american. he celebrates his immigrant heritage. i mean, what is it that every american knows about him? his father is from kenya, his

mother is from kansas. he's multiracial. he has -- there's a lot going on there, right. michelle has the blood of slaves and slave owners. not that -- we know that. we knew it but it's front page news. and we're now wrangling with these issues in forums that are just unprecedented and so i think it's just worth making that distinction and so understanding where some of that post-racial rhetoric flows from is certainly, i think, deep-seated questions about what race is in this country anymore. >> it's a really good point and i want to get into the demographic discussion a little bit. the president is biracial. we have more of our people who are identifying as biracial according to the last census and what's in the black community something congresswoman edwards touched on. you have this influx of immigrants coming from the caribbean, like my parents, and from africa and i'm wondering, in your studies have you seen any differences among their voting patterns or, you know, do

they view policy and politics and civil rights a little bit differently than, you know, the best population at large? >> it's a difficult question to answer technically because the black immigrant population is so small. something like 95% of all black americans in the united states are native-born. 5% are foreign-born, okay? and so what you end up with -- it becomes really hard -- you got to do expensive oversampling to get a sense of how these people are voting and i don't know the answer from a data perspective. all i know is that there seems to be -- my sense is that there's a real embrace of president obama from black immigrants as their own as well because again he taps into so many of these different communities. he tells us that that he is -- i mean, he embraces immigrant communities. he says that he himself is a product of that, he is. and so