the lead of colleges and universities like the university of south carolina, which adopted a tobacco-free policy. the university's associate vice president for student affairs and academic support is with us. will you stand-up or raise your hand? thank you very much. we need the engagement of young people, like ryan washington, a proud gonzaga eagle from gonzaga high school here in d.c. ryan serves on the d.c. youth coalition. let's hear it for ryan. thank you very much. across our country, individual americans are taking critically important action. there's statewide efforts under way like in kentucky, the bluegrass state. sue is working across the aisle to make it smoke free.

thank you so much for your efforts. there's significant city wide efforts going on. one of the cities leading the way is the city of chicago. we are proud to be joined by chicago commissioner of public health. thank you very much. would you stand-up? [ applause ] one of our great partners at the federal level, assistant secretary of defense dr. jonathan woodson. dr. woodson is leading an effort across the military to stop smoking and tobacco use. we can all agree that deserves some applause. thank you dr. woodson. [ applause ] >> we are pleased the local

champions and statewide champions are here today. it's an example of the exciting work under way but work we need to accelerate and continue. today, we meet at a cross roads. over the past five decades, we are learned what it will take to end the tobacco epidemic and make the next generation tobacco free. scientists, researchers and policymakers determined what works and the steps necessary to end the tragic epidemic. the question is, what kind of country do we want to leave our children and grandchildren? when i think of where we can be, i see a country where smoking is no longer considered en vogue for young people. i see a future where our kids are not burning through hundreds of billions of dollars each year due to tobacco use. a future where millions of moms, dads, sons, daughters, nieces, nephews aren't lost before their time.

it's a future this president, president obama sees as well. it's a future within our grasp, if we are willing to work together. thank you for all you have done. roll up your sleeves, we have just begun. thank you. [ applause ] >> dr. koh, i think -- dr. koh is coming back. >> thank you so much madam secretary for your strong words and your leadership and welcome, again, everyone, to this very special occasion at the white house. this day is a historic moment for reflection, recognition and resolve. first, we recognize the national leaders who have passionately advanced tobacco control to make

our country healthier. thank you. we have so many examples of your dedication. academic experts who propelled the science. heads of voluntary organizations and coalitions who served as crucial leaders for change and legal expert who is have challenged the tobacco industry in the courts. today, we begin by recognizing these visionaries. because of you, tremendous progress has been made. 50 years after the landmark surgeon general reports, the tobacco epidemic rages on in every community and every corner of you are country. far too many are becoming hooked and dying well before their time. millions continue to suffer, preventable suffering and die preventable death.

lung cancer, which should be an uncommon illness, instead, remains the leading cause of cancer death. projections are that the typical smoker loses at least a decade of precious life. so, 50 years later, tobacco addiction remains a public health catastrophe. to summarize, our good health is a precious and fragile gift and tobacco takes that gift away. this is not an accident. these deaths do not occur just by chance. each year, the tobacco industry spends $8 billion, nearly $1 million an hour to advertise and market cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, thereby outspending by a factor of 18-1.

each year, the tobacco industry recruits customers to consume over 14 billion packs of cigarettes. with each cigarette now understood to be an exquiz italy exquiz designed nicotine device. and each year the tobacco industry adds to an ever growing array of novel products like flavored small cigars that have special appeal to young people. for too long, these efforts have succeeded in creating a society where tobacco use is the social norm leading to devastating consequences. as a result, for each adult dying from tobacco, two younger replacement smokers have been recruited to take their place.

in this tragic way, the cycle of dependence and death continues for yet another generation. this is unacceptable and intolerable. especially since the burden of tobacco now falls disproportionately on some of our most vulnerable, such as persons of lower social economic status, sexual minorities and those living with mental illness and substance abuse disorders. as a nation, we should not be forced to accept the unacceptable and tolerate the intolerable. today, our nation is at a cross roads. how will we address the tobacco epidemic for the future? our answer must be that we renew our resolve and redouble our efforts for prevention. one of our biggest challenges now is the misperception that somehow that epidemic has been

solved when nothing could be further from the truth. we cannot assume that this battle has been won when our toughest challenges still lay ahead. it is time to commit to ending the tobacco epidemic once and for all. it shouldn't take another 50 years. [ applause ] >> we have, at our fingertips, many tools to solve the epidemic. we know what works. in 2010, the department of health and human services released the first ever strategic plan for tobacco control. it provides the framework to rejuvenate and reinvigorate efforts to end the epidemic.

now the surgeon general's report underscores it. they include high impact mass media campaigns, increased efforts to prevent kids from being bombarded by images of smoking in the movies. fully funded, comprehensive tobacco programs at cdc recommended levels. higher prices on cigarettes and tobacco products that will drive down consumption. protection of the entire population. not just half the population, for smoke-free indoor policies. implementation of the regulation authorities full access to cessation counseling and fda approved medication for smokers. this list is just a start. most important of all, we need

committed leadership through every sector of society. leadership that will reject the status quo as acceptable and move our nation to a healthier future. it is time to reclaim the social norm as one that is tobacco free and bring health, not disease, to future generations. because we will be successful if everyone commits to ending the suffering and making this epidemic a thing of the past. it is our hope, with a renewed sense of urgency, starting today, we can some day relegate the tobacco epidemic to the history books as we have done with small pocks. let's end this epidemic once and for all and give our kids a fighting chance for our healthy future. thank you very, very much. [ applause ]

>> now, it's my pleasure to introduce my colleague, the acting surgeon general and admiral of the public health services dr. boris lushniak. [ applause ] >> thank you and good morning to everyone. being a young tot in the

have no recollection of the public health earthquake brought on by the report 50 years ago. as a young and eager commission officer stationed in cincinnati, cdc in cincinnati, i remember the pride of being a member of coops troops, as we recognize 25 years of progress in reducing the health consequences of smoking. i would never have imagined then that i would be here now. as acting surgeon general and career officer, where we live by the mission, protecting, promoting and advancing the health and safety of our nation, i am proud and humbled to be here, to release the 32nd surgeon general's report on smoking and health. 50 years after dr. luther terry released the first ground breaking report. today marks a new era in the fight against tobacco related death and disease. under the revitalized mantra that actually c. everett coop used 25 years ago, enough is enough. we the public health community, and all of our partners, rededicate ourselves to new goals pointing us in the same direction. 12% smoking rates in 2020. 10% in ten years, or a smoke-free generation in the generation. the 50th anniversary report is the result of over five years of hard work by 85 contributing

authors and 120 expert reviewers. what an undertaking. in particular, i would like to ask the reports editors to stand to be acknowledged. that's dr. jonathan sammand. [ applause ] dr. terry buhoknic. [ applause ] >> and leslie norman. [ applause ] >> also, at this time, i would like to recognize my surgeon general colleagues, dr. david satcher, the 18th surgeon general, dr. regina benjamin, my colleague from the navy. surgeon general matthew nathan. two former acting surgeon generals of the commission corps to the u.s. public health

service. steven galson. in addition, i would like to acknowledge the flag and general officers of the sister services and the u.s. public health services and greetings to all those who serve our nation in uniform. when the first surgeon general's report on smoking and health came out in 1964, few people understood or anticipated the normty or effect it would have on the nation's held. on january 11th, 1964, the ninth surgeon general, admiral luther terry, issued a message that was really simple, but so definitive. it was unequivocal and unapologetic. it said cigarette smoking is a health hazard. of sufficient importance in the united nations to warrant appropriate remedial action. and that set us off on the path. it set us off on a battle.

since then, our knowledge of the health consequences of smoking and involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke has expanded dramatically. the conclusion from surgeon general reports have evolved from few calls of relationships in 1964 to a robust body of evidence documenting the health consequences of both active smoking and exposure to second-hand smoke across a range of diseases. over time, both the number and strength of our conclusions on the impact of smoking have increased. this morning, i summarize for you the ten major conclusions from the anniversary report entitled the health consequences of smoking, 50 years of progress. one, since the first surgeon general report in 1964, over 20 million premature deaths are attributed to cigarette smoking. today, the death toll is

from smoking is approaching 500,000 per year. enough is enough! two, the tobacco epidemic was initiated and sustained by the aggressive strategies of the tobacco industry, which deliberately misled the public on the risks of smoking cigarettes. the u.s. alone, tobacco companies spend nearly a million dollars an hour, 24/7 to market their deadly and addictive products. enough is enough. three, since 1964 report, cigarette smoking report has been determined to cause diseases in nearly all organs of the body, to damage overall health status, and to harm a growing fetus. the science has revealed in stark clarity that common diseases such as diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and colon and rectal cancer is caused by smoking. enough is enough. four, it causes cancer, respiratory and cardiovascular

diseases, and adversely affects the health of infants and children. enough is enough. five, the disease risk of smoking by women has risen sharply over the last 50 years. women are as likely to die from smoking as men. enough is enough. six, cigarette smoking causes inflammation and impaired immune function, reducing the body's ability to fight off infection and disease. enough is enough. seven, although cigarette smoking has declined significantly since 1964, very large disparitieses in tobacco use remain across groups defined by race, ethnicity, educational level and socioeconomic status in the cross regions of our nation. enough is enough. eight, comprehensive tobacco control programs and policies are effective, however we need to use them across the nation if we are fully to benefit from their success. further gains can be made with

the full forceful and sustained use of these measures. we must fund these programs at cdc recommended levels. enough is enough. nine, the burden of death and disease from tobacco use in the united states is overwhelmingly caused by cigarettes and other come busted tobacco product. rapid elimination of their use will dramatically reduce the burden. enough is enough. ten, the final one, for 50 years, a half century, the surgeon general's report created public health action directed at using tobacco use, disease and premature death. we pray the 75th anniversary report will have many zeros. and that the 100th anniversary will be marked by grainy pictures from the past. enough is enough!

[ applause ] >> i'd like to spend a few minutes going through the newly identified health consequences of smoking found in this report. it's astonishing we are still making these new findings. we know smoking is a cause of diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, erectile dysfunction, risk of tuberculosis, colon, rectal and liver cancers caused by smoking. stroke is now a known consequence of secondhand smoke expoture. one of the most disturbing findings is smoking by women has risen sharply. women are now as likely to die from smoking as men. their risk of lung cancer is now the same as men. more women die from chronic lung disease than men. the news for mothers and babies is sobering. it can cause fatal pregnancies and reduced fertility. for the children of woman who smoke during pregnancy, it causes cleft lip and cleft palate. smoking can have lasting adverse consequences for brain development.

other diseases caused by smoking include macular degeneration, a cause of blindness. smoking is now known to cause 13 different cancers. in 1964 we could only be sure about one cancer, lung cancer in men. today we know that smokers have a greater risk of developing lung cancers than did smokers in 1964, even though they smoke fewer cigarettes. changes in how cigarettes are made and the chemicals they have made have increased the risk of the most common form of lung cancer. cancer patients and survivors who smoke have a higher risk of

dying from other diseases, including breast and prostate cancer, than patients who don't smoke. we're still examining why this is the case, but evidence suggests smoking results in poorer response to treatment, increased risk of recurrence and increased treatment related toxicities. the need for more rapid action to reduce smoking and tobacco use by the new findings and economic version. the annual cost to the nation is approaching $300 billion each year. these costs, plus smoking disease and death in our population will continue for decades unless the prevalence of smoking is reduced more rapidly than the current status quo. burdens of tobacco are not shared equally. the midwest and southeast, our sexual orientation and mental illness. it affects whether we are harder hit by tobacco. the hoot cause is the tobacco industry marketing of deadly and addictive products.

>> public health leadership is essential in dealing with the industry. we need to achieve more rapid progress and help the 45 million smokers in this country. for those smokers, the clock is ticking. they can't wait for slow and steady progress to end the tobacco use epidemic. that's why we must strengthen our resolve and undertake the strategies that dr. koh discussed, and potentially introduce new strategies to more quickly end combustible tobacco use. we can't wait another 50 years. so i summarize here some of the key findings in today's report. it's a good read. although, i have to acknowledge that at 980 pages, the report is

really geared to a scientific audience. but it's absolutely critical that all americans understand the report's findings, and their recommendations. if we are going to work together to achieve a society free of tobacco related disease, this must be understood. sotail you'll also find in your packet an executive summery, a readable executive summery of the report. i'm encouraging you to read this. if you don't have time, read the truncated version. there's a consumer guide that translates the findings into plain english. the guide is also now available as of midnight last night, on our website, surgeongeneral.gov. the 50th anniversary should strengthen the resolve the end the epidemic. we are launching a public service announcement to remind us the status quo is

unacceptable. i would like to play it for you now. >> in the past 50 years, we have made a lot of progress in smoking prevention. if we don't do more, one out of every 13 children alive today will die early from smoking. that's 5.6 million precious lives we can save. together, we can make the next generation tobacco free. [ applause ] >> it's all about prevention and activism. it's all about moving ahead. it's all about getting more aggressive than we have been. as chair of the national prevention counsel, i'm proud of the federal government's leadership to address tobacco

use, the most common cause of preventible disease and death in this country. the national prevention council brings together 20 federal departments and agencies to provide leadership and coordination related to health, prevention and wellness, and our council members have made a strong commitment to promoting cessation and expanding tobacco-free environments. i would like to thank the many council members and advisory committee members who are attending today in person or on the web cast. as also mentioned earlier by secretary sebelius, we have the pleasure to have many of dr. luther kerry's family with us. i had the pleasure of presenting the family with the surgeon general's medallion. the citation on the medallion reads, in recognition of the ninth surgeon general, dr. luther terry, a pioneer in the 50-year battle against tobacco, 1964 to 2014. we congratulate all of you on

this incredible legacy to create a world without smoking. many people played critical roles in this report. i would especially like to thank the staff of cdc and my staff for your commitment to this endeavor. a special shoutout to dr. mary beth who for seven years carried the torch on surgeon general reports, calls to action, in our own journal, the public health reports. she will leave the office and take on new adventures. we look back with admiration and gratitude to dr. luther terry and many other individuals who started us on this path. today we call upon all americans to continue to work to advance this bold and noble cause. as americans, we know we can achieve great things when we dedicate ourselves to a mission.

in particular, we assigned a task to the next generation. represented here by ryan. stand up, ryan. by lukey. stand up, luke. by larissa. stand up, larissa. and by stephanie. i ask this next generation to make a pledge, to make a pledge to be partners in making your generation tobacco-free. you have been told. go forth and prosper. the mission to achieve -- you may be seated -- to achieve a tobacco-free society, to be able to flourish in the 21st century is achievable. without our help, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights we main elusive. enough is enough. thank you. [ applause ]

>> i would like to turn the microphone over to a great friend, a fellow public health leader, a mentor of mine, a fellow eis alum, dr. tom friedman, the head of the center for disease control and prevention. [ applause ] >> it's a little humbling to give a talk after someone just said enough is enough. but it's particularly humbling to give such a talk with so many people in the room who worked so hard, so creatively in such a dedicated way to stop the epidemic of suffering disease, disability and death caused by tobacco. i want to thank all of you for the work you have done for so many years. we are all standing on the shoulders of luther terry, the people working in tobacco

control for decades. we know there's been tremendous progress. but, we know, also, there has been -- there have been far too many lives lost. i will say that, the first big finding of this report is that we know that amazingly, amazingly, 50 years in, we are still finding out new ways that tobacco maims and kills people. it's not only figurative that this is a lot larger than this, but we know so much more about how tobacco is killing people. 20 million people killed, including 2.5 million people killed by secondhand smoke and 100,000 babies killed by expose sure to tobacco smoke. the big conclusion is that tobacco is even worse than we knew it was. the second is that tobacco control works. when we implement programs that

work, which many of you have been essential in trying, finding and implementing, we can save millionings of lives, at least 8 million lives saved in this country in this mere period and more to come. a third of the increase in life expectancy was from cessation of tobacco years. two years out of the 6.6 years gained in the u.s. as a whole, almost a third of our life expectancy increased from this public health program of tobacco control. we also know we are not doing nearly all we should and could do to help smokers quit and to prevent kids from starting, and to protect people from seco secondhand smoke. as a physician, i can tell you that the most difficult thing we do is to tell someone that they

have a terrible disease that may kill them, make them sick, cause pain and disability, disfigurement, and that it could have been prevented. so many patients will say to us, as they have said to me, i just wish i had known. i wish i hadn't smoked. part of what we are trying to do is to collapse that time horizon so we don't have that regret, so we don't lose those cherished members of our community. what we also know is physicians how hard it is to quit smoking. we know how addictive tobacco is. in the previous surgeon general report documents that in great detail. we also know that most americans who have ever smoked have already quit. we know most americans who smoke today want to quit.

most persons try to quit each year and we also know in communities around the country, where effective policies are in place, not only do they work, but they work astonishingly well. the rate of smoking awrong kids, for example, in some of the cities in the u.s. is less than half. down in the single digits, 8%. we can stop this tragedy. for many years, cdc has had recommendations for what should be spent. you have heard a lot of figures here. i just want to give four at this point. just four more. the first is that the states and localities around the country collect 80 billion, that's billion with a "b." the tobacco industry spends $28 billion a year on marketing and promotion.

we at cdc recommend that states spend at least 12 -- i'm sorry. i've said those numbers wrong. sorry. let me get that back. the tobacco industry spends $9 billion, it's $80 per person per year. the -- sorry. i'm getting it wrong again. let me start that again. four numbers. i'll try to get these right the first is the amount collected in tobacco taxes. that's $80 per person per jeer from both master settlement agreement and tobacco taxes going to state government. the second number is the amount they spend. that's $28 per person, per year. the third number is what we at

cdc recommend states spend on tobacco control. that's $12 per person, per year. not a lot to ask to address what is the leading preventible cause of death in this country, and thest costing our country close to $300 billion a year. but the fourth number is the sadde saddest. it's what states actually spend on tobacco control. and it is less than $1.50 per person, per year. so we're not implementing the things that work. we know that it is a terrible problem, even worse than we knew. we know that programs to stop at work, but sadly not doing them to the extent we would like to. one bright spot is tips from former smokers campaign and work publicizing and sharing stories of individuals who have come forward and said we want others not to say i wish i hadn't done this. we want others to be protected by what we have gone through. and i've had the privilege to meet several of these individuals, and i think particularly of terry hall. terry started smoking as a teenager as most smokers do. she smoked for a long time.

her smoking caused throat and oral cancer. and she didn't shy away from sharing her story. in fact she wanted to make sure as many people were aware of what smoking had done to her as possible. and terry's ads on tips from former smoker campaign attracted more than 2 million youtube views. she was greeted in super markets and the public by people that came up to her crying saying you saved my life. terry's story is known to millions and i had the great privilege of getting to know terry and work with her on some of the media outrage in the filming and community outreach here. sadly last september we lost terry, the world lost terry and her family lost terry. she died at the age of 53 from smoking. as she died, she actually insisted that we come to her bedside and film one more set of ads, so that she could help even

more people not be killed by tobacco. another individual, nathan moose, was also a victim of smoking, although he never smoked. he was one of those 2.5 million people killed by tobacco, although they never smoked. he worked for 11 years in a casino that allowed smoking and secondhand smoke permanently damaged his lungs. he worked to improve health in his community and for all americans and unfortunately he also died last year at the age of 54. both of these individuals participated in tips from former smokers campaign. that campaign has saved tens of thousands of lives and prevented hundreds of millions in health care costs. quitting can be hard. but i'll end with one message for everyone that smokes. quitting is hard but it is the single most important thing you can do to improve your health. most americans who've ever

smoked have already quit. most people who smoke today want to quit. you can quit. get help if you need it, one way or another, you can get tobacco free and together we can indeed put an end to the epidemic of disease, disability, disfigurement, and death caused by tobacco. thank you all very much. [ applause ] >> ask you to join us on stage, we have some time for questions. this ends the formal part of our presentations. we hope you walked away with some information, some numbers that you didn't walk away saying enough is enough, i'm out of here, but in this case we have several people in the room with microphones. if you would like to ask a question, raise your hand, we'll

get a mike to you. if you can identify yourself, if you so desire. >> good morning. can you hear me? i am from the national african-american tobacco prevention network, and this report seems outstanding. i was reading through the executive summary, and i see there that you are talking about the tobacco end game. at the last surgeon general's report, there was a wealth of evidence suggesting that tobacco products led to the initiation of tobacco use of young people, but it failed shy of recommending the banning of tobacco products. you talk about the ability for tobacco product regulation to have impact on public health, are we thinking about banning menthol being included in terms of trying to end the tobacco epidemic?

>> i can address that. we have a very -- first of all, thank you for raising that issue, a key health issue. we have a thorough process overseen by the fda now, first their scientific advisory committee looked at the committee and science, chaired by dr. sammet. that was put together and released. the fda had their own internal report. and last summer put out advance notice proposed rule making to invite public comment about potential options for regulations. so those options are being carefully reviewed by the fda. we want to thank them for thoroughness doing it on a scientific basis and expect to hear outcomes in the near future. >> good morning. paul billings, american lung association. thank you very much for your leadership today. enough is enough. the american lung association is very thankful for the efforts

under the affordable care act to increase access to tobacco cessation for smokers. we've heard and seen confusion from insurance providers about what exactly is a comprehensive tobacco cessation benefit. will the administration making efforts to define this critical provision of the affordable care act so everyone knows what a comprehensive benefit is and what is required in order to comply with the affordable care act, and most importantly give those smokers the help they need to quit? >> well, we are very proud of the affordable care act for many reasons, one is major emphasis creating systems of prevention and public health and access to preventive service is a major theme that applies not just to tobacco but to hiv and obesity and so many others themes. your point is a good one in that there's a broad opportunity to get service without added cost on private plans.

but exactly how that is translated state to state has differed until now. you have to remember, we're in the very early phases of the health reform chapter of our history. this is the first full year of implementation. so we are closely with my colleagues like yourself to define that further, to drill down on it, and to really give people the prevention benefits they need and deserve. so thank you. we're going to continue to work with you on that. >> i'm carol harrison with the voice of america. and if enough is enough, and the fda has the power and ability to regulate tobacco products, is there any thought to becoming even more aggressive and banning tobacco products, which would end the tobacco epidemic? >> you know, the issue is -- fact is fact, right? cigarettes cause addiction. cigarettes cause disease.

cigarettes cause death. the question of banning, of course, is sort of a bigger societal issue. i think the emphasis at this point is we need to have that discussion, we really do. but until we do have that discussion, the reality of the situation is we need to use the tobacco control tools that we currently have available, the ones already cited, and ramp up, because at the end of the day, if we are shooting for that tobacco-free generation, it is attainable using the tools that we have. but without a doubt, i think we need to have that discussion. >> we have time for one last question. >> john kline, american academy of pediatrics. thank you very much for a very excellent report and for this new commitment. i think we are also extremely concerned about the marketing and addiction of youth and are dedicated to eliminating tobacco secondhand smoke and nicotine addiction from all of our children, youth and protecting

nonsmokers, and we're very concerned. i think you have evidence in the report on the marketing, very concerned that too many of our advocates against tobacco are entertaining the debate about what harm reduction could or couldn't do and whether evidence is needed to demonstrate whether new tobacco products are, in fact, reduced harm, when until we have regulated them adequately from a marketing perspective and nicotine addiction perspective, we are losing the next generation and losing the public opportunity to act, and so i hope that all of us will recognize that unless we have regulated and controlled the marketing to young people going on among flavored products and new nicotine delivery devices, we ought not be leading that discussion with whether they have a role in public

health or not. [ applause ] >> i take it as a comment, not so much as question. is there any feedback from the group? okay. great. i see dr. frieden is eagerly grabbing for the mike phone, so -- >> so i do think one of the things that's so horrifying about this report is that 5.6 million kids alive today will be killed by tobacco unless we take urgent action, and the report actually breaks it down by state. you see state by state how many deaths there will be unless we act now. i think we need to do two

things, the first to fully implement the things that we know work. w.h.o. has summarized that in the empower package. you heard about them this morning. i won't repeat them. there are clear things we know will make dramatic differences. already many cities and communities made dramatic differences driving rates of smoking in kids way down. we have to think about what the future may hold. if we're talking about tobacco products, i would say as you have said essentially, they're guilty until proven innocent, not the other way around. we need to know that they will not be harm to children. we need to know they will not keep people smoking rather than help people quit. all of these new products may have a positive role if appropriately regulated, but not in the way that they're being sold now with widespread marketing over the internet with bubble gum and cotton candy flavors, with free samples, with 2 million, nearly 2 million american kids having used e-cigarettes.

we clearly need to support the fda. they're going to face undoubtedly legal challenge as they always do. so they have to win that careful balance between regulation that's effective and regulation that's going to stand up in court, and at the same time we always have to be innovating, we always have to be willing to try new things. if people in this room hadn't tried new things, we wouldn't know smoke free air acts save lives, don't hurt business. we wouldn't know how effective tax rates are at reducing smoking, especially in kids. we wouldn't know how effective ads are at reducing smoking if well designed and implemented. so innovation is an essential thing for us to continue as we implement our current strategies and as we find new ones to prevent the 5.6 million deaths. >> great. i think that sort of ends our time span for formal questions in front of the group.

i know several of us will be circulating amongst the audience, and so if you have follow-up questions or anything else you want to clarify. i thank you first and foremost for being at this historic event. [ applause ] i keep telling people the 50th anniversary only happens every 50 years. and so thank you so much. [ applause ] the heritage foundation hosted a discussion on trends in jobs, the the economy, and opportunity in the u.s. live coverage today starting at 12:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span 3. tonight on c-span3, washington journal's big ten series continues at the university of illinois. at 8:40 p.m., we look at an event about war, starting with a discussion about war and civilians. that's followed by a look at the legacy of former afghan

president hamid karzai and a panel of finding jobs for veterans. that's at 8:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. c-span's washington journal recently interviewed president at universities about challenges facing higher education, including student debt, admission policies, and campus safety. next, university of wisconsin president, ray cross. this is about 35 minutes. >> this morning's c-span bus is on the campus of the university of wisconsin in madison, and joining us on the bus is ray cross, who is the president of the university of wisconsin system. thank you for being here. let's begin with this distinction of being the president of the university of wisconsin system. what does that mean? >> within the university of wisconsin system, greta, there

are 13 four-year institutions and 13 two-year feeder institutions. extension is in all 72 counties, in addition to that, there are 180,000 students throughout the system. 40,000 employees. it's roughly the sixth largest system in the united states. with about a $6 billion budget. it's pretty sizable higher education, public higher education operation. >> and what does it mean that you are the president of the system as opposed to a president of let's just say the university of wisconsin madison, of one site? >> part of the theory behind a system is that they're meant to coordinate and to develop statewide issues, issues that impact the whole state and serve the institutions in ways that in

terms of sharing resources and helping them more effectively and cost effectively deal with some of the issues that are common to all of them. we represent each of these we represent each of these institutions in the capital, we partner with them. it's a collaborative effort on issues related to state legislation or federal legislation. >> and you reference the $6 billion annual budget for the university of wisconsin systems. state funding makes up about $1 billion, gift, grants and contracts at about $5 billion. the impacts, $15 billion plus annually. what does that mean, this economic impact? >> well, most economic analysis, that impact in terms of what it does to the economy throughout the state. it has an impact of what we purchase and how other -- we

higher and how that money stays in the economy. so, that's more or less a direct and indirect impact of those expenses on the economy in the region. >> and we want to hear from wisconsin residents this morning. we have a fourth line set aside for them. we've divided lines by students, parents,educators. and then wisconsin residents, we want to hear from you about the university of wisconsin and impact on your state. parents, 202-585-881. educator, 202-585-8813. heats how we divided the lines. we're talking with ray cross, who's the president of the university of wisconsin system. university of wisconsin-madison. how big is the university of wisconsin-madison? >> madison has about 43,000 to 44,000 students.

it's probably in the middle of the big ten, sixth or seventh in that category of big ten. it's the third largest recipient of u.s. research dollars in the united states. it's a major research institution. it's been ranked in the top five for, i think, as long as i can remember. it puts a tremendous emphasis on research and we've seen the outcome of that in terms of vitamin d addition to milk and all the work it's doing right now in stem cell research, translating skin cells to stem cells. and then changing those into different heart cells. and even retina cells. research in the biosciences, it's a phenomenal institution when it comes to research and energy and areas like that.

it's been very active in weather station activity. i think we have 18 nobel prize winners in engineering and in chemistry and medicine and physicians. it's a major research institution. >> and the university of wisconsin-madison, its tuition fees for undergraduate degrees, its tuition and fees for in-state your looking at a little over $10,000. $10,410. out of state the price tag is $26,660. the room and board costs come in at about $8,600. president cross, who decides how much tuition costs? >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear all of that, greta. tuition costs? >> yeah. who decides the price tag for in-state and out of state? >> the board of regents has authority to establish the tuition, however, that's

generally negotiated with the legislature. and a lot of that depends on the state aid forthcoming from the state legislature. as the university puts forward its budget and develops its budget, it does so in collaboration with the board, the board of regents. and that process of determining tuition is a balance between what the state will do for general program revenue or state aid and what we need in terms of tuition. >> what is the regents board, who sits on it? >> there are 18 members on the board. they're appointed -- well, some of them. most of them are appointed by the governor, confirmed by the senate. but several of those members are also occupying positions as a result of their positions, so there are two student appointees from the governor's office, but the superintendent for the department of public instruction sits on that. one is a representative from the

technical college, the board, sits on the board. so there are some positions like that that are also part of the 18-member board of regents. >> have they voted to increase tuition every year? >> oh, no. currently there is a tuition freeze. we're in the second year of that tuition freeze, and we are proposing that in the next two years that we also freeze tuition. we think we can do it for two more years. that does put some strain on us. there's no question about that. but we believe affordability is really, really an important issue given student debt and the things -- and those kinds of issues. we've been working with legislators and in particular the governor's office to try to balance that off, so the state -- so the state picks up a little bit larger portion of that -- of our budget. that's a challenge, given the state's revenue situation. and the demands on the state's budget, as you probably know,

medicaid and other nondiscretionary portions of the budget are growing rapidly. i think medicaid will go from about 17% to 18% of the state's budget to over 30% in the next decade. that leaves legislators with less discretionary money of which the higher ed portion comes from. >> the wisconsin governor there, governor walker, wants a tuition freeze. his opponent, mary burke, the democrat, concurs. how many students are eligible for financial aid at the university of wisconsin? >> i think at the madison campus it's about 61% or 62% currently get financial aid. obviously, i believe, we could do more in that area. we're trying. the madison initiative for undergraduates alone has dramatically helped. in a few moments i'm going to go over and meet with the fund for wisconsin scholars, another

major financial effort that's been tremendously helpful. madison and the whole wu system has increased its financial aid efforts to try to offset some of the costs for students. about 73%, as i recall, greta, of the students throughout the system receive financial aid. >> as you said, 61 pr% of underd students are receiving some sort of financial aid. there has been a tuition freeze at the university of wisconsin systems. and you want to continue that, president cross. i'm wondering, because affordability as you said is a big issue, do you think college is worth it? >> of course. i think every study that's been done shows that students in terms of economic analysis, college graduates earn more, considerably more than their noncollege counterparts.

in addition to that, the unemployment rate for college graduates is roughly half of what it is for noncollege graduates. there is a definite distinguishing characteristic economically. but i don't think it should be measured only on an economic scale. the value of a university education goes beyond that. and it's important to understand what it means to have an educated citizenry. that's the fundamental -- i think the fundamental piece of what a higher education experience is all about. earnings and economic impact on the family and the state is important. i think it's also important in the state of wisconsin where we have about 150,000 to 170,000 vacant job positions right now. it's important for the university to help develop high-impact talent to address some of those needs.

probably 30% to 40 or 50% of those positions require a back lawyer yet degree. some require good writing, good critical analytical thinking skills, greta. >> let's get to phone calls. pam is up first in middleton, wisconsin. go ahead. >> caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. good morning, president cross. i'm calling to your stachlt and your reference to our college as a premiere and progressive research institution. i was surprised to learn that my alma mater, which i take pride in, is conducting controversial experiments on baby monkeys. i have also recently learned that a petition by change.org started last week and over 200,000 people have signed that so it appears i'm not alone. so i'm calling to see how you

reconcile this in the testing that so many researchers are calling unnecessary, cruel and outdated, with our image and reputation as a progressive school. >> thank you, pam. that process -- the process that one goes through on a university campus to secure approval to do research of that type is very extensive. as i recall, there are four different levels, and the faculty that review that come from all different disciplines and it's a very rigorous process. and the need for this has to be warranted through that process. that's handled here at the madison campus by what i consider to be very conscientious and diligent people. that process has been under way and this research program has been through that process. and so i think we have to let that process guide us.

concerns, and i have received those. and we're taking those very seriously. and i think we're sharing those with the board. we're re-evaluating this, so we are concerned about this. thank you, pam. >> and, president cross, what -- is there federal oversight how research is conducted at universities, like the university of wisconsin-madison? does the federal government have a say in that? >> oh, yes. it's -- any research involving federal funds has a -- there are rigorous processes that the federal government requires. and there is a serious oversight process, and, of course, that's a part of this, too, greta. >> and how does that process work? >> well, it depends on the type of research that's being undertaken. most of that is -- well, there are pieces of that, depending on

if you're doing lab work or if animals are involved or human -- if there is human research involved, how that's -- there are protocols that are required by the federal government. they audit that. they audit that on a regular basis. and and they establish the processes that help guide that. >> we'll go to bill next in andover, minnesota, a parent there. hi, bill. >> caller: hi, greta. and thank you for c-span. i just had a fairly simple question. my son's going to a college, a state college here in minnesota, and we had heard of collaborations like -- i think it was between north dakota and south dakota and minnesota about a collaboration of in-state fees that would be considered for colleges in different states that collaboration financially that way. is that true or how does that work? >> yes, that is true.

wisconsin also has a reciprocity agreement with minnesota. so if your son or daughter from minnesota would go to wisconsin, at in-state fees and in-state tuition, and vice versa. wisconsin students would attend minnesota institutions, state institutions, in a reciprocity agreement that is negotiated at the state level. we currently have that. >> by the way, c-span's big ten bus tour started out at the university of minnesota last week. so if you missed that, go to our website, c-span.org. the tour continues and we are doing a month-long series of interviews with presidents from different big ten universities. and today c-span's bus is at the university of wisconsin-madison. we're taking your questions and your comments about higher education. the university of wisconsin

systems' president ray cross is with us aboard c-span's bus. dial in 202-585-8882. wisconsin residents, to want hear from you. greg is in madison. go ahead, greg. >> caller: well, thank you for taking my call, mr. cross. i was listening earlier when you were talking about research is a vital portion of the state and the university and madison as a resident, a current -- a graduate of uw, i am considered about the internal deprivation studies. i didn't hear if those studies had already started. i don't recall if they had already started. i think there was a previous caller talking about that. my biggest concern, or one of my biggest concerns was that seeing this did not pass full committee and it only went to a subcommittee and without full

approval. is that your recollection of what transpired? >> it's my understanding that it did go through the entire process, at this point at least. i'm not sure that it has started, but i'm sure it's gone through -- well, i think it has gone through the entire process. >> president ray cross, let me throw in another issue for you and that is rural colleges, wisconsin being a rural state, you have a background in running rural colleges. what are the challenges in reaching students in these rural areas of wisconsin? >> there are a number of challenges facing those students. and i was just reading about, i think, florence county in wisconsin, which has a high school of 25,000 students -- or 25 students. not 25,000. the size of and the scale of those institutions limits their

ability to do a lot of things i'm sure they would like to be able to do. ironically, a number of the problems facing rural wisconsin schools are also facing urban institutions. and they obviously are approaching them differently. they're on both ends of a spectrum. but the challenges facing them are similar. how we deal with that and what we do to help serve those folks is, i think, very important. we're attempting to do more course options, that is, students taking high school credit courses concurrently with college courses to help them get started. the university needs to improve its ability to speak to the remedial needs of both rural and urban students. we need, we badly need to make sure that students get into the

educational pipeline, that they succeed and retain in that educational pipeline, and that we connect them to businesses and opportunities both for their career and for life here in wisconsin. and that's a challenge both in the rural setting and in an urban setting. >> with the cost of in-state tuition at the university of wisconsin-madison being over $10,000, room and board you add on another $8,600. what about online education? >> wisconsin, i think, offers something like 5,400 courses online. and we have been pioneers in the whole area of competency based education, which is an invadetive new approach based on what you know and what you can do rather than how much time you spend in a classroom. that kind of activity, i believe, has a great future.

now, it faces a number of challenges, because in wisconsin and i'm sure elsewhere, in wisconsin there are somewhere between 750,000 to a million working age adults with some college, but without a degree. that number nationally is around 31 million. now, if we can -- if we can deal with that effectively, i think 31,000 rather than -- i think if we can deal with that effectively, it's important that we educate more working age adults. not just 18-year-olds, so that they can -- they can participate in this economy, particularly the future economy, which requires this kind of an education. >> do you see the future of education, be it online or other technology, reducing the price tag of tuition as well as room and board? >> i'm not sure. there are some examples where it has.

i think it has tremendous potential. it also creates several concerns. ideally, it would be a blend, a hybrid, if you will, between traditional models and online models. i think they complement one another nicely. but it takes the right type of student to engage in this online process and leverage it to its maximum ability. some students are just not suited for that type of learning. remember, we're focusing this type of education on adult learners who cannot simply put their children in day care and return to a dorm and live on a campus. we're trying to serve them effectively. it is a different experience. it's not the same. what you gain in a residence experience is -- is very valuable, very important. but we want to be able to serve

them with the kind of experience th need at that point in their lives. and i think that will ultimately have a huge impact on both them and the people throughout the state. >> gene on twitter asks this, of those students enrolled as freshmen, what percentage go on to graduate? >> i'm trying to remember that number. i would say that we probably retain 60%. graduate in time is another thing. i think at madison our six-year graduation rate is higher than that. i think it's closer to 80%. it's in the 70s, as i recall. systemwide i believe it's in the 60s, the six-year graduation rate. we're working very hard to increase that. i believe the madison campus alone has about a 4 1/2 year

time frame for most graduates. that time to degree not only saves a student and their family money, it also gets them into the workplace quicker, and it's something that we want to do, not only to make it affordable, but also to help our economy grow in the state of wisconsin. >> president cross, what percentage of students are taking more than four years to graduate? >> more than four years? throughout the system, that's probably going to be around 40%, in that range. i don't remember the number, greta. we are above -- we're better than the national average. we're considerably better than the national average throughout the system. so -- however, we don't think that's goods enough. we want to do better. and i think it's interesting that in my era most students graduated between four and five years, at least.

however, today many more students are dual majoring. they're doing a study abroad. it's a high-impact learning practice. they're doing internships that delay that graduation. so, the learning experience that they are getting is much more enhanced and complete than it was 40 years ago, in my case. >> we'll go to virginia, chesapeake virginia. arthur is watching us there. go ahead, arthur. >> caller: yes, i would like to ask the professor about the stem cell research, if you are doing anything with stem cells as far as for -- >> arthur, you got to turn that television down when you're talking with the guest. president cross, he's asking about stem cell research at the university of wisconsin-madison. >> i'm not familiar with everything we're doing, but i am familiar with something they're doing with what i would call

nondiffereno nondiffer republican shated stem cells. they're trying to take skin cells and convert them into stem cells which then can be converted into specific cells, heart -- i know of one project where they're actually working on creating retina cells from those stem cells. so, those are some of the broader research projects that i'm aware of involving stem cells. >> susie's next, in springfield, missouri, an educator there. hi, susie. >> caller: hi. i have two questions. sometimes research universities have issues related to those advanced senior faculty having contact with undergraduates. i'm wondering how many adjunct or course professors teach undergraduat

undergraduates? and the second question is i'm also understanding that the number of majors in that institution impacts the cost. how many majors in each discipline and how many popular harnlgs? and have you had to eliminate majors to cut costs? thanks. >> i think if i understand the question correctly, there's two parts, and that is how many senior faculty teach freshman courses. that's a mixture. i think we're very similar to most institutions. that process is focused on making sure students do well, balancing that with their ability to interact with prominent quality faculty. the second has to do with popular majors, et cetera. since about, i don't know, in the last five or six years, those majors related to the

s.t.e.m. field, science, technology, engineering and math, including in some areas as art, the demand for those disciplines has gone up somewhere around 15%. unfortunately, the number of faculty serving those fields has remained about the same. so one of our challenges is to increase the number of faculty in those critically important fields that the state badly needs to better serve those students and to serve employers in some sense, an indirect sense, and the economy of the state. that's a challenge for us. it really is. i think it's a challenge for most big ten institutions, if not most universities. we're working very hard to do that. that's part of our budget initiative in the coming biannum. >> joe wants to know are corporations letting schools know what they need so the universities can produce them and why not if they're not? >> i didn't understand the question, greta.

could you say it again please? >> are corporations letting schools like yours know what they want, what they need from workers? >> yes. it's also important, particularly in wisconsin, that we reach out to them. i think it's -- too often we're too passive in that regard in not seeking their input on what they happen to need. in wisconsin we have aggregate data for the state and we look at that in a macro sense, but there are regional differences throughout the seven regions in the state. in terms of what employers need. and while that's -- it's important to do that. i totally agree with that. and we're working on that. that's one of my initiatives to more tightly connect the university to what the corporations in the state need. it's also important to recognize that we're not here just to serve those needs. we have a broader purpose in

educating the complete adult. that's the complete person. that's part of our challenge. >> charlotte is watching us in chicago as a parent there. go ahead, charlotte. >> caller: thanks so much for taking my call. as a parent, i can tell you that it's been an unbelievable burden to deal with my son's college debt. we co-signed for a lot of his loans. unfortunately, we were caught up in the perfect storm because i started a real estate investment company about two or three years before the real estate market crashed. so, i lost -- we lost all of our money because of that. and my son was in college at the time, and so we had some money initially to start pay for his college and then bewe weren't able to once the market crashed. so he had to start taking out loans and we had to co-sign for the loans. for some reason he wasn't able to get the loans in his name.

so we have really been paying for college, in a sense, since he started in 2005. so, we're -- it's just been unbelievable. we reached out to senator durbin and he and senator warren are very focused on the suffering. i call it suffering because that's really what it feels like, that families are going through trying to pay off these bills. and one of the issues i have is the interest that's being charged on the college debt, it's about 8%. and my husband co-signed for about $58,000 in loans for my son. by the time he was out of college, that had -- because the interest starts accruing, by the way, on parent plus loans as soon as a parent signs for those. and i guess we were so overwhelmed by the real estate market situation, we weren't even focusing on that. so, by the time my son got out of college, some of the loans -- and there were more than this. it was -- we were at about

$66,000. >> charlotte, where did his son go to school -- your school? >> caller: yes, his first semester was at purdue. thank goodnesses after one semester there, he was almost afraid to tell me that he wasn't happy there. and i couldn't tell him how happy i was to hear that because of the cost of it. so, that was about $20,000, that first economister. and then he went to 2 1/2 years of community college, and then he finished up at depaul university. >> charlotte, i'm going to leave it there and have the university of wisconsin system president, ray cross, jump in. a lot of issues there, president cross. >> yes, greta. and, charlotte, i understand and sympathize with that challenge you're facing. my sympathy and my heart goes out to you in terms of the market crash. there are probably two or three things that are circulating in the kacht that are important for

financial aid to touch on your -- the situation that you're in. one is the refinancing capability. and you mentioned the size of the interest rates and how that is calculated. and i think there are a number of folks working on that issue. so, what you're pointing out is a challenge and it is something that several legislators at the federal level are looking into. secondly, i think it's also important that when the clock starts impacteds that -- not only that interest rate, but also your payments. given your situation, it would have been helpful had there been some accommodation with respect to your employment. and the earnings that you were making. and then, thirdly, i think it's also important to note that the financial aid process, which is based entirely on what you earned in the last year, not entirely, but heavily on that,

when it changes quickly, that that should be calculated differently. i understand that's a challenge and i think there are several folks working on that. so, i appreciate your -- the challenges you're facing and also want you to know that several folks are working on that. >> we'll go to sue next in illinois, a parent there. hi, sue. >> caller: hi. how you doing? >> fine. >> caller: i guess my question, one of them would be, are you going to attempt to do affirmative action like the university of michigan? i do believe that you're going to hurt your own kind in the long run because the asians and people from india are going to skyrocket in those grades. caterpillar in this local area already hires more people from india and asia in their engineering departments because they're cheaper. and what is your stance on that? >> the university of wisconsin

believes strongly in having a diverse population on the campus. a population that allows us to engage in different ways of thinking and doing things. so, it's not just diversity in the terms of -- in terms of what one traditionally thinks of. it is also much broader than that. one of the mottos here at the university of wisconsin, which is -- it's actually on plaques around the campus. and it's the sifting and winnowing, to use an agriculture term, to look at issues to find the truth. and i think that occurs most effectively when you're civilly engaged in discussions and interactions with people who are different, who think differently, who explore things together in a way that's -- to pursue the truth. that process is constantly being

reviewed and how we do that, obviously, academic prowess is the greatest -- is of the greatest importance for those students who are seeking admission to madison and several other of our campuses. but we look at broader things as well. we also want to know how -- what's their potential for leadership? how engaged are they in the community? what's their commitment to serving others? those issues impact admissions heavily. and so then we do also look at diversity in terms of the broad category that i would call inclusivity. live tonight at 8 p.m. eastern on c-span, the louisiana senate debate between incumbent senate mary landrieu and her republican challengers. congressman bill cassidy and rob maness. elizabeth crisp of "the

advocate" gave us an update. >> joining us from louisiana this morning is elizabeth crisp. she's the capital news bureau reporter there for "the advocate" to talk about the senate race between democratic incumbent mary landrieu and bill cassidy, the republican. there's also the independent candidate, rob maness, who's running as well, and several other on the ballot. louisiana senate race according to the latest poll is headed toward a run-off. do you agree? >> that's what it looks like right now. and, you know, that's the kind of game plan that i think that the campaign is taking, even though -- you know, he's not the incumbent but he's very much running an incumbent's race. the next debate is tomorrow night. that's one of only two debates he's participating in leading up to this. because it's going to be very interesting. >> yeah. and i misspoke before. rob maness being a republican as

well. nine candidates total on this ballot. what's going on that it's headed for a run-off? what's happening with the incumbent senator there? >> yeah. you know, louisiana is very different. it has this -- what we call a jungle primary. so, everyone -- you know, actually next week is the primary but everyone runs together in the top two vote-getters go on to december if nobody gets over 50%. it looks like senator andrew, she -- landrieu, she's going to get the most votes next week, most likely, by what the polls are showing. nobody will have enough to crack into that 50% plus one vote. so, yeah, it looks like it's headed to a run-off. it's very interesting, really, how the campaign has been going here. we've had tons of -- you know, you can't watch tv without getting bombarded with the campaign ads. and, you know, it's really interesting. a lot of it is really -- senator

landrieu being a democrat, a lot is on president barack obama. that's what we're seeing a lot of, a lot of campaigning tying her to his record directly. >> is that what's been impacting her ability to get over that 50%, or is it her record as a senator? >> it's certainly obama. that is what every campaign event, what every commercial, all of that is -- you would think barack obama is going to be on the ballot with the way it's being campaigned both from the cassidy campaign and from the rob maness campaign. there was a debate last night cassidy did not participate in but it was between senator landrieu and rob maness. time and time again it came up as, you know, mentioning barack obama and the affordable care act and all of that. >> former president bill cln ton

was in louisiana yesterday stumping for senator landrieu, asking voters to get out and vote. will that work in the clothe closing weeks? >> oh, that was actually last monday. >> i misspoke. >> that was last monday bill clinton was in town. it's interesting. it was the second event he's been at here. the first one was more private fund-raiser in new orleans that people had to pay to go to. this was an event in baton rouge that, you know, you really just had to go and, like, rsvp on her side. it was open to the media, unlike the last one. and it was packed. about 1,000 people there. probably a little more than that. and, you know, they've been kind of pulling out the stops. the week before that, john mccain was in town to stump for bill cassidy. so, it's definitely drawing a lot of attention. i guess we'll see how much attention it gets.

right now early voting, today's the last day for early voting. it's up a bit from past years. not as much as the presidential election but about 200,000 people have early voted at this point. so, i guess we'll see how much the big names are drawing out. but it being a nationally watched race, it's definitely drawing a lot more attention this year. >> elizabeth crisp, how much money has been spent on this race? also, what are the key demographic voters to watch for? >> gosh, i haven't even looked at the last -- the last i looked it was -- i think fifth most expensive race in the country. millions of dollars. right now it's so hard to even track it because there are different groups that are constantly running ads on tv and trying to figure out who these groups are. really the last poll that came

out that you mentioned earlier, it still showed 14% undecided, you know, so -- it's really finding out who are those undecided voters and how much do these ads that are streaming in and the rhetoric against the president actually matter to them. >> elizabeth crisp with "the advocate," appreciate your time. >> thank you so much for having me on. c-span's campaign 2014 is bringing you more than 100 debates for the control of congress. tonight on c-span, our coverage continues with senate debates. live at 8:00, the louisiana senate debate between incumbent democrat mary landrieu and her republican challengers congressman bill cassidy and rob maness. at 9:00 the main senate debate between incumbent republican susan collins and democrat shanna bellows. at 10:00 the texas senate debate between incumbent republican john cornyn and democratic

challenger david alameal. be part of c-span's campaign 014 coverage. follow us on twitter and "like" us on facebook to get debate schedules, video clips of key moments, debate previews from our politics team. c-span is bringing you over 100 senate, house and governor debates. and you can instantly share your reactions to what the candidates are saying. the battle for control of congress, stay in touch and engaged by following us on twitter at c-span and liking us on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. take you live now to the heritage foundation here in washington, d.c. for an event looking at recent trends with jobs and the u.s. economy. the event should be getting under way shortly. again, live coverage.

good after, welcome to the hair tan fouj can addition. we're pleased to welcome to you our douglas and sara allison auditorium. we welcome those on our heritage.org website and those on c-span tv today. we would ask everyone in-house if you would be so kind to see cell phones are turned off. it's always appreciated. we will post our program on the

heritage home page for your future reference following our event today. opening our session is jennifer marshall, our vice president for the institute for family and community and opportunity. she oversees our research areas that determine the character of culture, education, marriage, family, religion and civil society. she also heads our richard and helen center for religious and civil society, manages or familyfacts.org for the latest social science on those issues. prior to joining us here she worked both at empower america and as senior director of family studies at the family research council. please join me in welcoming jennifer marshall. jennifer. >> well, thank you, jon. thank you all for being here for this conversation about opportunity in america. we're really pleased to debut this index of culture and opportunity. and here with me on stage is david azerrad, my colleague at the heritage foundation.

the reason we wanted to start the conversation here today is that david a long with our colleague ryan anderson at heritage, contributed the introductory essay to the index of culture and opportunity. and before we got into the 31 indicators of culture and opportunity and whether those indicators are opening the doors or closing the doors to the horizons for all americans, we wanted to set the stage with what our concept and idea of opportunity was as a whole. and david and ryan did a really great job of that. we wanted to talk about a few of those ideas today. david and i are going to take about ten minutes to do so before our main panel comes up. i'm very pleased to have my former colleague and co-editor for this project, rea space hederman to be the moderator for that panel. he is the moderator of the buckeye institute in ohio and

leading three contributors in a conversation about we -- what opportunity is and how we can grow it in this country. let me start here with the conversation with you, david, by asking, you've made the observation, obviously, that the premise behind this index is we have the interrelation of economic and social issues. in fact, you remarked that's the first line of page one of this index. can you tell me a little bit about -- you're somebody who looks at the founders and founding principles. can you tell me from your perspective how you think they would have looked at this conversation today that we sometimes have between economic and social principles. >> yeah. i think they would have found it strange that people label themselves based on a particular subset of issues they care about and say, this is what i care about. and this is going to be my governing philosophy. i think the founders being statesmen had a much more holistic approach. and their concern -- they told us, and what is without a doubt the most beautiful line in the

constitution, it's the last reason in the preamble for why we have a constitution. to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and, and this is the key part, to our posterity. there's a concern when you're foungd a regime to set it up in such a way that it will endure. not just that you will be able to enjoy your liberties right now, but that there will be a next generation. more importantly, that this next generation, too, they will also be capable of enjoying the blessings of liberty. and this is how i think we should start to think about the family and these -- i don't like the word social issues. it implies these are issues that matter only to religious people or traditionalists. i think the founders would have understood the family's a core political issue. you know, maybe to translate it in wonkier d.c. terms, the social and economic issues in this regard are deeply intertwined. what's going to come in and take that place? so, you want to limit something.

what's going to expand and fill in the void? it has to be self-governing individuals and a vibrant civil society. how do you produce self-governing individuals? what is the cornerstone of a vibrant civil society? it's families. a defensive marriage serves the ends of limited government more effectively, less intrusively and at less cost than trying to pick up the broken pieces of a shattered marriage culture. >> so, opportunity is not necessarily a word we find on every other page of the founders, but you would argue, i think, that it's imbedded in their writings. can you explain that a little more? >> yeah. you don't really see references to opportunity and equality of opportunity, which has become the rhetorical linchpin of the right in america. it's really a 20th century term. it begins to appear in the late 19th century, but it's not the language the founders used. that said, it's imbedded right there in the declaration of independence. once you proclaim that all men are created equal, what you're in effect is saying denying the fundamental principle of every

aristocratic regime. you're saying that actually your -- if all men are created equal, it means you're free to pursue happiness as you see fit. that means you need opportunities to pursue that happiness, to pursue a career of your choosing, to marry who you want, to worship god acordsing to the dictates of your conscience. you need to open up opportunities for people to live out their lives as they see fit. that's not necessary in an aristocracy. you don't get to move and that's it. so, ip bedded in this idea of equality is the notion of opportunity. >> so, what is the source of opportunity? where does it come from? how should we think about this? >> i think that's a great question. you know, some on the left will say that it's government spending. that they like to say that we need to invest in opportunity and that means pumping more money into the economy to create jobs. i think the proper way to think about it on the right is

two-fold. one, will be free markets. i think everybody knows that already. what free markets do is create these opportunities for you to hon hone in on a particular product that doesn't exist, a service that doesn't exist or a better way to do something. that's not very controversial. the other thing i would like to emphasizes, and i guess to remind a conservative audience, is that opportunities not only come from markets. they also come from the rich network of human connections we have. they come from the people we know, from the communities we belong to. and one very important source of opportunity in people's lives is being part of thriving communities. and one problem we have in many areas -- for people who have deficit of opportunity is not only are there few economic opportunities available to them, civil society has broken down and it really becomes a society of disjointed individuals rather than interconnected individuals. >> so, we've heard the metaphor of a ladder of opportunity quite

a bit. but one of the words that comes up in the conversation that i've had with you about opportunity is capacity, quite a bit. that it takes something more to grab hold of that ladder. so, can you talk to that issue a little bit? >> yeah. so, we love this metaphor that the american dream is about a ladder of opportunity that you need to climb. well, what does it take to climb that ladder? i would appeal to one of my favorite americans who i think is one of the greatest apostles of upward mobility that this country has ever seen, frederick douglas. he gave a famous speech on self-made men. what was the -- what was the recipe? what was the recipe to their success? his answer was a simple one. work, work, work, work. not transient and fitful effort, but patient, enduring, honest, unremitting work in to which the whole heart is put in which temporal and spiritual matters is the true miracle worker. as franklin put in a letter,

america is the land of labor. here we work. i don't know if any of you watch "dontoabbey," a job? what is a job? this is not the american ethos. work has to be a cornerstone of an opportunity world view. the other things that are important are obviously character, grit and determination. and i'm rather encouraged in this regard to see that the left is starting to talk about these things. for the longest time there seemed to be a divide that conservatives would talk about character and virtue and the left was more interested in solutions that dealt with programs and transferring money. i find it encouraging to hear more and more voices on the other side acknowledging the importance of character. lastly, of course, and rather obviously, is education. and -- i would prioritize them in that order. >> opportunity doesn't have the

same ring to everybody who hears it. what do we do about that? >> yeah. so conservatives, like i said, have -- and libertarians for that matter, have made opportunity the reer to ral lyn -- rhetorical linchpin. it isn't keeping with our traditions. i think we should remind ourselves on the right to also speak of security once in a while. that the opportunity message will appeal to many, but that there's something unsettling about opportunity. there's something unsettling about markets, about the churning they produce. the left is very good at alleviating the concerns of people who feel insecure. i think we have much to offer in this regard. we believe in a strong safety net. we recognize that people fall on hard times and that they need to be taken care of. i think conservatives and libertarians need to remind themselves to keep opportunity at the forefront, but remind yourselves once in a while -- or ourselves, pardon me, to people of security and to address these

concerns as well. >> thank you, david, for joining me to kick this conversation off. >> thank you. >> we'll exit the stage and ask the next panel to come up. while they do so, i'll make a couple of other comments. as you can see, david azerrad and ryan's essay helped us to shape an outlook on opportunity that looks at it as the capacity to enjoy the blessings of liberty today and to be able to pass them on to the next generation. that's a critical goal for us in the institute for family, community and opportunity, which we launched here at heritage in june of this year. the index of culture and opportunity is the flagship publication of that institute. and it was launched in july. the contributors, the panelists you see here today, were all contribute irz to that. and my former colleague and good friend, rea hederman now executive vice president of the buckeye in ohio was co-editor. grad glad to have his partnership. he'll lead a conversation with three of our contributors to the volume. over to you, rea.

>> thank you, jennifer and david for that great introduction for laying the groundwork on why culture and opportunity are linked and why it matters. let me go through my panelists. on my immediate left is steve moore. steve is the current chief economist at the heritage foundation. his second stint at heritage. he was back at the heritage back in the '80s before he decamped to the cato institute, president reagan, senior economist to the u.s., most recently was on "the wall street journal" editorial board. so, i know heritage is glad to have steve back in his role as chief economist. in the middle is health macdonald, thomas c. smith fellow at manhattan institute and editor of city journal. recipient of the 2005 bradlee prize. she's worked on many different issues at city journal covering homeland security, immigration, policing, homelessness,

education policies, families and businesses improvement districts. to her immediate left, far left, last but certainly not least, another former heritage colleague of mine, chuck donovan. now the president of the charlotte lozier institute. before that he was legislative director of the national right to life committee. he also worked as a speechwriter for president reagan and helped lead the family research council for nearly two decades. previously was senior research fellow at civil liberty society at heritage foundation. as jennifer mentioned, they were key writers and contributors to our index, taking a look at an indicator and say, what does this indicator mean, how does it fit into the overall scope of culture and opportunity and why is it important? well, the index focuses on two things -- culture and opportunity. what do we mean by culture? this-n this definition we're laying out saying, let us measure the help of american families, our civil

institutions. civil opportunity looks at what type of educational achievement are our students getting? how likely are you to find work? what are the chances of starting your own businesses? you still have the opportunity to be successful in business as you were in the past? now, i want to take you back in time to about 20 years ago when then-vice president dan quayle was embarked in a dispute with a minor tv character called murphy brown over the role of single moorehood. this is considered a key part of the cultural war. the sitting president of the united states in a silly debate with a television character. now you're starting to see, and i would argue you start to see a little more consensus saying, maybe the murphy brown wars about single motherhood shouldn't be lumped in the cultural war argument but a social economic component as well. consider the work of charles murray in coming apart that takes a look and says, family breakdown is occurring upon people who didn't go to college,

while college educated elites, marriage is a very stable and growing institution. is very strong by comparison. then take a look most recently, the summer brookings institute wrote a book called "generation unbound" looking at how the rise of single motherhood is harming the economic prospects for a lot of young women. now just monday "the washington post," robert samuelsson wrote a piece he entitled "family deficit" in "the washington post" taking a look saying there are economic problems that are arising as we see the breakdown of family and culture. so, i guess my question is, are we coming to consensus where maybe cultural issues is impacting economic opportunity? is the left coming on board, like david alluded to? what has changed the discussion since murphy brown to where you have, you know, brookings talking about the breakdown of the family? >> well, ms. sawhill has been a leader in understanding the catastrophe that is the rise of

single parenting. so, i don't think that she's necessarily indicative of a change. and i think we've still got a lot of ground to conquer in spreading the understanding as widely as possible of the relationship between family breakdown and poverty. i still see the classic story on "the new york times" complaining about poverty and the difficulty that poor families are having getting by. it is almost never pointed out explicitly that what they're talking about is single mothers. i'm also concerned on the other side that republicans are starting to talk about single mothers as if they were antalogical categories. in campaign speeches you hear the pitch to single mothers, as if they simply exist by some kind of fiat, designed fiat, as

opposed to being the product of choice. and i think that the real key is personal responsibility. and we have to make the message that gets harder and harder to make, send it out, that fathers are absolutely crucial to their children. and feminism makes that very difficult. so, it's a constant battle. >> i have one perspective to that. robert rector writes brilliantly in the indicators about the course of welfare over the last 40 years. the argument to the question of self-sufficiency rather than increase in poverty. and we tend to talk about single mothers. and i think the instinctive reaction i have to that is, is that a bit of finger-pointing and blaming? this is the person who has stayed with the situation, which wasn't ideal, is raising the

child. isn't it a case that she's the single mother present and yet you have a single father, too. he's absent. we have to begin to account, i think, for the full picture of why that single picture is absent. i think radical feminism is part of that. you could say a certain degree to which pro-life movement is part of that, which i'm a part of that, which provides means for single mothers to have their children. we basically, though, have a flight from responsibility. and i think at the end of the day, we are not only damaging self-sufficiency, we're damaging a deeper notion of resilience. any economy, certainly the one we have now, with our ups and downs, we've had a recession under a conservative administration, growth under a liberal administration, policies that punish success, that punish enterprise. i think we have a spreading pessimism. i see it in dozens of other indicators about a future. what a family gives you, an

intact family gives you the sense that whatever calm comes, you have layers of resilience that can help you rebound and also achieve your goals. but i think we can spread the blame pretty widely for this attitude of, i think, diminishing responsibility and diminishing responsibility and hope. >> steve, you are our economist. last friday, federal reserve board chairman mentioned in a speech in boston, a senator from massachusetts, president obama has talked about income and equal where it is a huge threat to opportunity that middle class are struggling to get by and we are not seeing the american dream achievable for those born at the bottom. is anything coming in an economic problem? what is going on here? >> i want to first point out that, i think there is a lot of reason for optimism. i think a lot of these positions that we have been taking

about -- the fact that parenthood matters -- i think that's becoming more accepted. but then you see what hillary clinton said on friday where she made -- and i think -- maybe we're not making progress that we thought we were. by the way, that's related to this, because one of the things you find in your excellent report is that we have seen a decline -- maybe that's because there's a war against business that is extremely destructive. i wanted to get off that off my chest. it happened a few days ago. >> is his mike working? >> i deal with tax rates, as you do. i deal with the labor force issues and elasticity. i read the entire speech. i read the entire speech that

janet gave. and she talks in great length about income in equality. she never brought up any of these issues of culture and family. as i look at the data and the evidence, obviously, i think that tax rates and all these other things matter. but there are two things that really are the key to reducing poverty. free enterprise system, which is -- i think we would all accept. the second is a non-economic factor, marriage. marriage is the best anti poverty program out there. it's much, much more effective than hundreds of billions of dollars we have spent trying to combat with welfare programs. i have come to the conclusion that when you look at people at the bottom of the income scale, those people in the -- that we call poor that are in that bottom 20%, a huge percentage of

them come from broken families. and the other thing that's interesting about people at the bottom, is a point that you alluded to earlier, is that when you look at those people in the bottom 20%, over half of those households have no one working. if no one was working in the household, how in the world can they get out of poverty? you could give them money, which the government does. but you're not doing anything to lift their lives. i want to square the circle by saying, it goes back to what david and jennifer were talking about getting on the -- climbing up. if no one is working in the household, you are not on the first rung of the economic ladder. if you don't get on the first, you don't get on the second, third, fourth, fifth. i would say that's why work is important and marriage is important. >> i would say, again, we need to find the language, again, to

valorize fathers. it's boys who are hurt the most if they don't have a father in the house. of course, there's wonderful single mothers that are doing the best they can. and many of them are heroically raising children who are capable of seizing opportunity. but on average, males and females bring different gifts to raising children. and boys do need their fathers. and what they learn are some of those other virtues that we don't always talk about which is so important to being able to seize the opportunity that is out there, which is self-discipline, deferred gratification, being able to realize that you've got to study at night rather than going out and partying or hanging out on the street selling drugs. and so i think one of the chapters in here talks about drug use. sobriety is also a very

important virtue that is necessary for building the civil society that david and jennifer spoke of. so i think it gets harder and harder to find that language of say no. women are strong but they can't do it all. we need fathers as well. >> let me add something to this. you know, there's this great chapter on drug use. and i'm a libertarian. i feel like what people do in their own house is their own business. but it's interesting. i've been doing a lot of work with a guy named bob funk who runs the biggest employment agency in america. employed 400,000 people a year. probably more than any private sector employer in the country. he has been telling me consistently, look, there are jobs out there. this idea that there aren't jobs -- there are jobs out there for people who have skills. he was saying, they had a recent

opening for 500 employees at a new factory. they got something like -- i don't remember the exact number. 6,000 applications. out of those 6,000 people, he said over half of them couldn't pass a drug test. if you got half the people who can't -- they're not going to get employed. they're not employable. that's an example of this being a cultural problem, not an economic problem. >> the meth problem is very scary. i think that's the one thing that charles murray didn't talk about in his book that he could have is that's what's happening in the lower stratum of our economy is this very scary spread of meth use. it's completely handicapping people in their opportunity to seize the opportunities out there. >> i was wondering -- we see a lot of business reports saying middle america, blue collar america, heavy manufacturing, you have a lot of companies that want to hire.

you have a lot of people out of work. because of the cultural factors, businesses aren't able to handle them for trust worthy jobs, because of drug use. when we did the index, we laid out the cultural sector. we tried to walk through three different sections. the first looks at pure culture and then moves into personal responsibility. then we end with opportunity. we laid that out for a reason. my question is, is there a chicken and egg? do you need a strong culture to build strong opportunities? is this kind of how vital is us to keep our strong civil institutions to maintain kind the economic growth and prosperity america has enjoyed? >> let me give you an example of how culture -- in a very broad sense right now -- affects our economy. you are right. there are millions of jobs out there that are being unfilled. there is a kind of new kind of

cultural dimension to the idea that blue collar work is not acceptable. you know? blue collar work is for immigrants and other people. look, blue collar work is tough work. there's no question about it. but, you know, we have millions of jobs that could be filled by people with two years of junior college, getting some kind of apprenticeship, getting a vocational skill. if you are good at those kinds of things, you can rise up -- start at a welder or carpenter or electrician and become the foreman. these are not low paying jobs we're talking about. these are jobs that pay sometimes $100,000 a year. they are going unfilled. it's partly -- my point is this is partly attitude. we need workers who have skills, who can make things and fix things. and i think the reason those jobs aren't being filled is a kind of cultural issue that it is beneath the american worker

to do that. >> i would say there's a schizophrenia in the right. we occasionally hear people speaking as steve does absoluteabsolute ly accurately about the nobility of all kinds of work. at the say the time, conservatives have gotten sucked into the mantra that everybody should go to college. i know so many well-meaning philanthropists in new york city who are running programs for inner city kids. and their measure of success is invariably how many kids they are sending to college. that's obviously a good thing to go to college, especially if you are going to college out of a passion for learning. and when you are there, it's a good thing if you realize that this is your best opportunity to read the greek tragedies and shakespeare and george elliott and learn the periodic table and be filled with a joy.

but it is not necessary to go to college to have a productive life. and the more we have this idea that you are a failure unless you have gone to college, we are going to water down the academic standards of college so much, as is already going on, that it's virtually meaningless. so i think that we have to get our message straight here and not cave in to that notion. >> this is almost more prevalent on the right than the left. >> i think there's the whole question of motivation for work as well. i believe theologically and socially in the value of work and nobility of labor and the need for a drug free workplace. i walked past a construction site this morning. the first thing you see is a ladder down to a 20-foot pit and next to it is, this is a drug free workplace. i think for the vast majority of people, in t