that change comes from elections. this comes from freshman, frequently. change in this case is coming from the class of 2006-2008. in the leadership race in the senate, the leaders are becoming focused on this issue. the leader of this change is senator tom udall from mexico. i would like to have my colleague here from the center of american progress to introduce the center at this point. . .

bay were things they could do nothing about . there was an election on the institution from republican chairman to democratic chairmen. they were in many cases more conservative than the republicans. the been in the congress for decades. if they were extremely conservative. they found it was next to

impossible to get anything done. one of the 19 democrats was a congressman from arizona. he began meeting with a couple of other disgruntled younger members. lee metcalf and frank thompson, who was elected earlier. they typically met in gene mccarthy's area. that little band grew into what became known as the democratic study project. before stirred udall left, if they had already pulled off the first clue.

it allowed the speaker to gain control of that committee. that made it possible for the oor.edy is ministration to get they already had that 1 victory before stewart udall led to the house. his procedure became may -- his predecessor left an impression. by most accounts, it is not functioning effectively. he was christ in that effort. -- he was crushed in that effort.

when he said the cactus has pricks on the outside. six years later, the reformers did win the b. they turned the institution upside down. they removed three sisters. the house is never the same again. it took 20 years from when stewart udall went to the office. they finally did it. i say that in part to say even the biggest and most powerful institutions had the most intimidating people running them. they can be changed.

i also point that to save the speaker has the chance to do that. we are pleased to have him. he has spent his life in public service. he was a federal prosecutor. he was elected as attorney general before he came to the house. he was a member for 10 years. he was much beloved in the house. he decided to run for the other body. i think everybody is led now that he has done that. he is the one who can be loyal to the institution. thank you for coming. [applause] >> that is impressive.

that is an impressive introduction. i thank you all for being here. i have a five brothers and sisters. i think they would -- they always say in the family that none of them are in elected office. they think i got the defective gene. thank you. it is going to be great to be on this wonderful panel. let me echo what you said. we are a very small senate family. our thoughts and prayers really go out to senator reid and his family. i hope i will be able to get in some encouraging words in person in the next couple of days. i cannot agree with you more in

terms of setting the stage on the filibuster. the way i see the institution -- it is an institution in might need of reform, whether it is the committee structure. it used to be specialized on the committee. now we are on committees the cannot specialize. the biggest bill harley ever gets to the floor anymore. -- hardly ever get to the floor anymore. we of responsibilities for to under 50 programs. agency does not come to the floor for their opposition. the department of justice has a mandatory requirement to be authorized every year. that is not have them. the thing that underundermines

this is the fund-raising. i think we will have an opportunity to talk about all of that as we move on to the panel. i am going to focus now on senate rules reform and talk about the filibusters. scott talked about my dad after my election. my father gave me good advice. he suggested that i read read the autobiography of clinton anderson, the man who held the same senate seat that i now hold. anderson addressed many issues in his time in the senate. the one that stood up to me was his dedication to making the senate a functional body. that is a dedication we share. one of the main reasons i ran for the senate was because i saw

the world's greatest body turning into a graveyard of good ideas. after a year of observing the body in action or the lack of action in many cases, it is clear we are in danger of becoming just that. anderson says the toxic partisanship we face today and not poisoned the system. the manipulative use of the filibuster had already taken hold. it was used to block some of the most important legislation of that time, including civil rights bills that now ranks among the senate's greatest accomplishment. anderson heard the same thing from leadership that we hear today. he was told that changing the rules would never happen because of the 2/3 requirement to win a debate.

any attempt to change rule 22, the filibuster rule, would get filibustered. anderson did not agree. he knew the constitution and not the senate rules gave each house the authority to adopt its rules by majority vote. his constitutional option was soundly based in the interpretation. article one, section five, clearly states each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. the constitution also explicitly requires a supermajority vote in seven instances in things like ratifying a treaty or amending the constitution. it clearly spells out when a

super majority vote is required. in stating that each house may determine its rules, a super majority vote required is noticeably absent. there is also a long span of common law principles of held in the supreme court that one legislator cannot find. liberals and conservatives alike have used this principle that the senate can change its rules by a majority vote. he stated in congressional testimony that to the extent that the senate rule 22 report to require a 2/3 majority to invoke cloture on a rules change, rule 22 is unconstitutional. it is an ancient principle that

one legislator cannot find a succeeding legislature. armed with the constitution and common law on his side, senator anderson went to the floor january 1953 and moved that the senate immediately consider the adoption of its rules. the motion was tabled. he introduced it again at the beginning of the 85th conference. in the course of that debate, senator hubert humphrey presented an inquiry to vice president nixon who was presiding over the situation. do the rules of the senate continue from one congress to another? he noted there had never been a direct ruling on this question from the chair.

nixon stated "while the rules of the senate have continued for one congress to another, the right of the current majority of the senate at the beginning of a new congress to adopt its own rules, stemming as it does from the constitution itself, cannot be restricted or limited by rules adopted by a majority for previous congress." he went on to say any provision to deny that right was unconstitutional. i would also note three vice presidents, democrats and republicans, sitting in the chair have all come to the same conclusion and the same result. despite nixon's attempt, andersen's motion was tabled. in 1959, he introduced the constitutional option.

this time it was with bipartisan support from 30 other senators. johnson was not happy with the proposal. he saw it as gaining momentum and realized the majority of senators might join the cause. to prevent his motion from repeating, johnson came forward with his own compromise. he proposed changing role 22 to reduce the required vote of cloture from 2/3 of the senate. his compromise passed. the attempt to change the filibuster rule continued for more than a decade. world 22 was last changed in 1975 when center's walter and james pierson use the constitutional option to change the cloture requirement to 3/5

of the center's. -- senators. only three of my colleagues were in the senate then and have ever had the opportunity to vote on rule 22. 97 of us have never voted on the rule that prevents today's senate from passing critical legislation. all of this brings us to today. the impact of the filibuster has become more pronounced. senators from both aisles have used it as a weapon of partisan warfare. you only have to look at the winding path of health care reform to understand that something is seriously broken in the system. recently we saw another example when a single senator used the senate rules to play politics

and ultimately prolonged passage of an unemployment bill that otherwise had wide bipartisan support. this underscores the time has come to address rules reform again. i intend to lead that effort at the beginning of the 112th congress by constitutional authority and because this one legislature cannot find successors, in the next senate will not be bound by rule 22. it can ended the debate on the rules change by a simple majority in proceed to a vote on its rules. next january i will follow in the footsteps and make a motion. we do not have to make drastic changes. we can modify the filibuster

rule in a way that still respects minority rights but prevent our current state of minority obstruction. we should also look at reforming other things that are being misused, provisions like the use of anonymous told to block legislation. i am often ask, "how much support is there for your proposal/" many senators have expressed a desire to reform or end the filibuster senator harkin and senator bennett have both introduced resolutions to change the cloture requirement. all the proposals have merit. the reality is none stand a chance of passage without the constitutional option as the foundation for reform bill each time the requirement has been changed, it was the

constitutional option that provided the impetus for the senate to act. let me make clear. my proposal is not the nuclear option despite the assertion by some. the nuclear option was a threat by republicans in 2005 to declare the filibuster rule on constitutional in the middle of the congress. to me, that is like a baseball team that is losing in the fifth inning trying to make the home runs stop counting from the opposition. through the 111 congress, we are bound by the current rules. we cannot change course mid stream and declare a rule on constitutional because we do not like the way it is being used. the right way to make the changes for the senate is to

exercise its responsibility and examine the rules at the beginning of the new congress. that is what the constitution provides. that is what members of past senate have called for. the nuclear option is to continue manipulation of the rules. it is not a real solution. i hear the question of, what happens if your party is in the minority? won't you want the filibuster the way it is? first of all, history tells us that shift is inevitable. the real question is, shouldn't the minorities primary concern to the well-being of our country not the power of its party? what will happen to this country if we fail to pass critical legislation? i have every intention of making a motion for the senate to adopt this role next january

regardless of the majority party. senator, i want to have the chance to legislate whether i am in the majority or minority and to advance the best ideas. our current state of paralysis prevent that. it is unacceptable. the constitutional option will help insure the senate does not become a graveyard of good ideas. i am very pleased to be here. we are going to take a key questions and then moved into the panel. >> we have about 20 minutes. >> i want to keep my remarks brief and to a question and answer session. then we will get to the panel. >> when you raise your hand,

introduce yourself. we will bearing a microphone to you. -- bring a microphone to you. >> i am david. >> how are you? >> i am puzzled by the assertion that you'd have to wait to have the senate rule change. there has been no senate rules adopted. they can be changed any time. i am puzzled by the assertion that is with that being lead changing the rules in the middle of the baseball game. this is not a game. this is the country. it is like singing these rules that say the other side get to home runs for everyone that is hit are bad rules and they should not be acquiesced to. the country cannot afford more of this.

what i want to know is, can the senate changed the rules right now? >> i gave you a little bits of why i came to the conclusion that i have that changing mid stream is not a good idea. the reason is, those three vice president looked at exactly the issues you are talking about. they looked at the issue because it was brought to them at the beginning of the congress. it was brought to them some point later. they knew there was going to be critical things past. can you put in new rules? here is what they concluded. they looked at the constitutional provisions. they said that you can do that after you have moved past the beginning.

why you have done is ask a guest -- acquiesced and adoption of rules from the previous congress. the crazy thing is in some of these debates they extended the first day of the senate sometimes to six weeks while they debated the issue that i'm talking about in order to come to a conclusion. the same construct is there. on the first day, you can take up this issue. that is the appropriate time to do it. if it does not mean -- i could not agree more with your frustration about the current system.

i came here to legislate. i cannot believe the energy that went into the 2008 election, electing a president. the present but the huge majority. what he stood for was change. he wanted to change our health- care system. he wanted to tackle the economic systems. here we have a situation where a role is being abused. we have basically given the minority of the power over the will of the majority. i read this book before i was elected. i thought i should offer it in 2009.

as i came in, i kept asking the parliamentarians how it worked with the adoption of the rules. two days later, it was opening day. they said, the rules are the standing rules of the senate. they go from 1 cent to the next i did not take that as an answer. i researched it. the deeper i got, i realized that the three vice presidents decided the best time to do it is at the beginning of the congress. there are many things we can do now to try to break the law. one of them happened yesterday or the day before when harry reid basically sent a warning out to mitch mcconnell

supporting the constitutional option in changing the rules at the beginning of the next congress. to me, he was singing to mitch mcconnell and the opposition party that if you continue this, he may find yourself in a very different situation. i hope with all the things that's going on but you would see some lessening of this opposition and obstruction. imagine a chart of filibuster's that have been utilized. if he could to the beginning of the filibuster, you would see on this chart a very small number. then you would see at the

hundred 11 congress -- at the 110th congress, it to come up to 112 clotures filed. that 112 is more than all of the filibusters from the 1950's and 1960's. we are on a path to break the record in the 111th congress. it is probably going to happen for th. this is a trend that has to be dealt with. all the way back there? >> i am a retired army physician. i am a believer in our government. where is the elected fit into this issue? i have a feeling there is a lot

of anger. it is a complex issue. where can you give going if he did not have the support of the electorate behind you? >> the other day i first thought was the premise of your question is, the public does not know much about this. the public has focused on it. there is an energy behind it. it is pretty amazing. why do i say that? there was a recent poll, the majority of the public wanted to do away with the filibuster. it identifies the frustration that i have a saying, how can you allow minority to prevent the majority from doing the will of the american people? that is where we are. i am trying to do everything i can to engage the american people. we are on facebook.

normally on facebook, you have bands of people. i said of the facebook site of "fixings senate rules." you can sign up as a fan. we are trying to do every bit of media savvy we know to get the word out there. i can tell you what i hear over and over again when i go home and the subject comes up. people say, "why do not you make them stand up and filibuster these popular things and show how unpopular they are?" the answer is, that is very tough. we should be doing more of that. one of the reforms i am looking at -- i have not signed on any particular reform -- i am trying to leave the entire effort with the constitution. i know that history, every time

there is a change in the rules, it came about by the constitutional option been the catalyst. i think people are engaged. one other thing on reform. one of the things we might look at is what i would call "use it or lose its." many of you would look at the screen on c-span2 and what you will see is a quorum. nothing is going on. what is happening during that filibuster is time is being utilized. a filibuster is going on and no one is on the floor. that is the case for a significant amount of time. what my proposal would do would basically say if you are not

utilizing that time, then for every minute you do not use, and a minute it yielded back. we are working on something like that. we are working on something to protect the minority rights, do not make the senate exactly like the house, but make it work so that when you have the majority they you can get things done. i think that is what the american people want. that is the frustration we feel. >> if you have to wait to january, do not have to make a concrete? do not you have to let.

the need to show it to the american people? i had a conversation earlier. he felt the 2/3 was still the top priority. how the answer his argument? >> give me the second one again. let me deal with your first issue. that is basically that we are coming back again to what i was talking about. it shows the phase of construction rather than having a quorum. people do not understand. we are going to do more of that. i think the poster child of doing more was a senator from

kentucky standing up on unemployment. it shows you the way the senate rules are structured. one senator was able to stop the entire show. he paid a price for that. we had a number of centers come down to the floor and talk about what was happening with unemployment, what was happening with the highway trust fund. we had to stop projects. people were being laid off. it took us several days, but he ended up holding for theifoldin. it meant that they were going to have to think very hard, are we going to do that again? by being aggressive like that, i think we can make a difference.

we are showing you how difficult it is today to actually require them to get up and vote oand tak about a particular issue. the first step that is required is to get a quorum before you can force that. a quorum is a 51 senate. they do that need to get the core. the majority needs to get the quorum. you have 51 senators. we have 59 democrats now. if they have to be on the floor or near to the floor to establish a quorum call to force the debate. the opposition designate four

senators who will take a four hour block of time. they will speak on whatever the issue is. they are talking about is unemployment. they do not like the way the bill is structured. as soon as they noticed that 51 senators are no longer on the floor, they can note the absence of a quorum. the student goes into a quorum call. then the clerk has to call the names of all the senators to determine when 51 are there. when a quorum is established, you then go back into the debating session. you only have one center at the time having to stand up. under the current rules, we are talking about a very time

intensive process. as you'll hear from the other panelists, the most precious thing in the senate is the time on the floor. they put them on the floor in order to move them along. it had a lot of parts to it. how would you are you? >> maybe one of our panels will argue the opposition. my answer would become a look at the constitution.

each house may determine the rules. it requires a supermajority. one legislator cannot find a supplicant. a subsequent legislature. one legislature cannot find a subsequent legislature. let's say you pass a piece of legislation and say in the future you will need 75 votes. that would be held unconstitutional. what will we have done with the filibuster role is exactly the same thing. in the senate filibuster rule,

it says that you need 67 votes to change the rule. you can just go to the constitution -- at the beginning of a sentence, you have the authority to change the rules by a majority vote. there are going to be to positions out here. if you go back and read the debate in 1917 and 1959, there were always two sides.

i would suggest the better if you -- better view is that you can adopt the rules. >> my question is, has vice- president biden expressed an opinion on this? when the republicans were in the majority, do you know whether vice president cheney had an opinion? >> vice president biden has not express an opinion on this. specifically, can the senate adopt rules at the beginning of the congress by a majority vote? he is not taken a position on that? when he was as recently, do you

think the filibuster is being utilized in the way it was historically designed? he came out very strongly and said, the senate that i was first elected is a completely different senate. he pointed out that the picture was of use. it does not utilize in as many times. he has not ruled. the prudent thing for him is to not answer that question he will answer on the vice the parliamentarians. three other vice presidents they all entered the question.

yes, but the beginning of the congress you can vote. that is the catalyst that we have here. the constitutional option is the catalyst for change. it is the fundamental part of reform. if you hear anyone say they want to put a new role in, it has to be public. it has to be for a reason related to the individual. all of those reforms will lower the threshold. down to 51. none of those ideas can be put in place unless the

constitutional option is used allies. if you are interested in this reform, the key is knowing this constitutional option and advocating for it. i am sure all of you that have questions. >> after the statement from scott, we will go into a question and answer again. >> let's give some applause to the center. -- senator. [applause]

>> it is my pleasure to introduce this panel. it has been written about extensively. some of you have picked up a statement. this is on the web site. he is a senior fellow. the chief of staff is represented. he spent 31 years in congress. he had other positions. he writes about the government appropriations. he has expressed himself in writing and speaking on the

filibuster and other reforms. he was director of the government said his division of brookings university for many years. he has written a book that is irrelevant to this. -- that is relevant to this. it is called "the broken branch, how congress is failing america and how to get it on track." oxford university press. he has written almost a dozen other books. something redistricting has had an effect. both will have short statement. there will be a response from senator udall.

we will then open it up to the audience for questions and comments. i can see several of you. several of you are an expert on this topic. i will call on a couple of you that i know our experts. he has the best book on procedures. he is prepared to ask a question. let go to scott lilly. >> thank you. for only about four of the 31 years and worked on the hill was i on the senate payroll. it was the depiction of the senate that i read as a teenager that really got me interested in politics and public service for them in college, i read about centers in the world. i thought it was a great book on

american government. that raised my esteem for the body. i do not come at this as a bitter house staffer who is angry at the guys on the other side of the hill. i have great regard for due the senate should not be the house. it should be the leavening force. it should be a force for more measured consideration of the events and policies. i have been in situations more than a few times during my career where i saw the senate make it valuable contribution by slowing down the pace of which we were moving on issues that have not been as tough having said that, i think there are some very issues with respect to the way the senate works today. i think that anybody that is governed by a set of rules has

to review the rules. they are the type of individuals who are members of the institution change. i do not think that has happened as frequently as it should. it is one of the reasons why i think we should take the advice very carefully. the thing i think is overlooked in much of the current discussion about the senate is that while we may have strong views on issues like health care and we may be very angry that the deliberation is being slowed or conclusions that we think the country has arrived at should be ratified by the legislative body and not blocked by a minority, those are all

important things. i feel those very strongly myself. i also think those are going to be quite difficult to change. what do we not in you as carefully as we should is the fact that the senate' is -- i want to go through three areas that we can see that. the first is the authorization process. i think that is an arcane term. most americans do not know the week create programs -- that we create programs to pass legislation that establishes the structure of the programs. it said spending levels but does not actually provide spending. this year, according to the

cbo, 50% of all spending outside of the defense department worker programs that were no longer authorized to do the operations expired. they added 5 to under 50 authorizations that had expired. money would -- 250 other stations that had expired. they were put in a situation where you either had to terminate a major portion of the department of justice or other critical activities or find them in the absence of an authorization. the reasons we do not have the authorizations is because the chairman -- there are 18 committees that do nothing but work on establishing programs. the chairman of the committees cannot get the floor time for the leadership. the leadership does not have the floor time.

so much time is consumed with pointless appropriation bills and various other business including dealing the quorum calls the you see on c-span all the time. not having authorizations is much more profound of a problem that might seem at first. first of all, every program in the government needs to be look out with a fresh eye. government agencies need to come and give the committees an opportunity to probe and find out if this is the place where we will make savings. this is the place we could modernize? for their programs that can be defined? are there authorities that these people need that they do not have in order to make the programs work better? those kinds of questions are not

being passed on a routine basis. the authorization process is what makes that happen. until we find a way to get to the senate to go back to a system where it can adopt authorizations, it is difficult to motivate them to move legislation they know. the second area, and i think this is an area that turns the whole notion that the filibuster is being used to give more measured deliberation is in the area of appropriations. this year, of the 12 appropriation bills, nine were actually considered in the senate. 3, including the biggest of all the domestic appropriation bills, the labor program, was not considered in the senate.

when center reed decided that there simply was not the floor time to take up those bills, the committee reported bill was taken to conference with the house. if they actually voted on it. it was then wrapped into a conference report. it was voted on by the senate at a point in the process where the demands were offered to change the funding. they simply had an up or down vote. as bad as that sounds, three of the 12 bills -- that is better than we have done most years for the last decade. on average, we have had five

bills that never went to the senate floor but where in acted because there is no time to get there. i think that is probably necessary. it is about an abuse of process. furthering this process means the bills but to come up cannot be considered in a timely way. the house passed four bills in june. the other eight in july. the senate passed two bills in july and were passing bills of the senate floor through september, october, november,

and december. what that meant was the final bill was not enacted until late december. we were almost 25% of through the fiscal year. what that meant was one of the agencies had to go on a restrictive budget because of time. that meant that agencies that have regulatory responsibilities have to cut back on travel or procedures to perform the functions. it meant that program officers had nine months to do 12-month work. that may sound like a pretty lousy record. it is better than we have demos years in the past. for several years, we have given agencies only six months to spend 12 months of money. that means they have to restrict their contacting process. they cannot go through the bidding contracts and do it in

six months' time. you cannot take the awards and have them reviewed. it means they really have a place for fraud and abuse built into a -- resulting from the legislative talent. the final area i think we have a huge problem is the halloween out of the senior executives in the government. right now, we have 228 into positions in the federal government or appointments that are pending. there are a number of those, i think there are 12 of those that have been pending more than 12 months. they cannot get a vote up or down. i think it would be much better for the it ministration and government if the ones with

sears objections would be brought up and voted down to another appointee could move. we sit in a gridlock with a very important positions. in recent months, we had in a number of people that worked. one was pending for over six months when her nomination came to the floor. we had a vacancy in the administrative administration do that is a key position in service to moving this administration's agenda. that should not be a partisan issue. she was held up for 10 months and confirmed with 96 positive votes.

there is a great deal of this that really does not have -- with the controversial nature -- it has to do is senators using their ability to put a stick in the spokes in order to give parochial concessions and related to that nominee. the poster child for this activity has been senator shelby in recent months who up until about three weeks ago had a hold on every single one of the administration appointees, hoping that he would somehow influence their decision over buying an air force tanker plane that will be made in his district. it is sort of funny and a sort of aggravating. in the end, you have literally hundreds of important decisions across the government that are un billet. in the career people that are

working cannot get the information. you have a break in the link of communication. as a result, you have more waste and fraud and abuse in the government. that is a cost that we pay for not the major issues before minored day-to-day functions of the senate. they are ways that do not make sense. i think it needs to change. i have two suggestions with respect to that event i do not think to any great damage to the nature of this country. one is to simply put the limitation on how long it takes

to consider an appropriation bill. i generally think most of the bill should take more than two or three days. i would be willing to associate with that a guarantee that every senator get off a one amendment and debate it for an hour. that would be far more intimate and protection of minority right then we had today, where we do not even take many of the bills to the senate floor. i think that is a very reasonable compromise. another thing that has to be done is that there is some limitation on how long trainees can be held up before a vote is taken. there are a lot of different ways to do it. i think some action has to be taken. >> i am getting depressed.

i hope we have answers to some of these problems. >> of course. >> we talked but the regular process for appropriations and hold on confirmation. i lifted about will problems at the beginning. when you come up with problems, i like the spirit of solutions, too. >> got it.

presenting it later tonight. please join me in welcoming

justice ginsberg. [applause] >> last year, justice sonia sotomayor was appointed by president obama. she's earned her a bachelor's degree at princeton university. also her law degree from yale university. after her graduation, she worked as an assistant district attorney in new york. she has taught at new york university and columbia. she was nominated to the west district court for the southern

district of new york by president h. w. bush and to the u.s. court of appeals by president clinton where she served until she was nominated to supreme court by president obama. she was awarded as a our honoree of the year. please join me in welcoming justice sonia sotomayor. [applause] >> the baroness hail of richmond is a justice of the supreme court of the united kingdom.

in 2004, she joined the board of appeal and she was the only woman to have ever been appointed to that position. she served as a law lord until 2009 when she transferred to the new supreme court of the united kingdom. she graduated from cambridge at the top of her class. she was a professor of law at the university of manchester and remained in academia. she was the first woman and the youngest person to be appointed to the law commission. she became a queen's counsel. she became a judge in the family division of the high court of justice before being appointed as only the second woman ever to serve on the court of appeal of england and wales.

while she served on the court of appeal, i had the opportunity to visit her in london in the summer of 2003 and she invited me to sit next to her on the bench as she heard an argument. it was quite an experience. she is the incoming president of the international association of women judges and she will take office at the upcoming conference in may. please join me in welcoming the baronet's haess hale. [applause] our moderator is dr. judith resnik.

she has chaired the sections on procedure, federal courts, and women in legal education. she is the founding director of the arthur liman public interest fund. she has had a long time connection to both the national association of women judges and the international association. she currently serves as the co- chair of the judicial academic network and she is a managerial trusty of the international association of women judges. please join me in welcoming dr. judith resnik. [applause]

we started talking about the sled dog race. a record number of women have entered the race. women have won the race five times in the last 37 years. an interesting fact about the race is that many of the most talented and accomplished lead dogs are female. [applause] [laughter] in fact, the winning habit winner of the last three depends upon his dog. as you can see, we have three trailblazers with us tonight. let's listen in as they discuss

their lives in the court. >> thank you for hosting us and for making this seem less. we are in a conversation which crosses many generations and many jurisdictions. when justice ginsburg joined the bench, she was welcomed by justice o'connor gave her a great deal of it fice. she told her "what you needed to know when you came on board." my question is whether you gave the same advice to justice so admisonia sotomayor.

>> it is exhilarating to look out at this audience. how many of you work here at the meeting in the spring of 1980? come many were we, maybe 30? to see how this organization has grown, this is something wonderful. the greatest gift that i received did not come from just this o'connor, but from my predecessor. he sent over a packet and he said, cannot look at this now. when the confirmation process is over, you might find it useful.

what it was was his chambers manual, how things are managed. i have kept that up over the years. it has had more electronic things added. it is more sizable than it once was. i hope that you got that on the first day. for sandra, she had a rather close relationship with our chief. it was rumored that they dated together when they were law students. she had a certain report withi - rapport with him. she told me that when you deal with the chief and he asks you to do something, even though you

think that it is an assignment you would rather not have, you except it and you'd do it. that is the way she is about everything. sonia sotomayor does not really need advice. she has done everything that anyone could do in the legal practice. she knows that my door is always open. i welcome the times that we have. it is a very hard job. it is the best job for a lawyer but it is also very hard. whenever we get together to talk, it is always a great pleasure for me. >> let me turn to the justice sotomayor.

how has the job surprised you? >> i will digress for a moment and tell you how excited i am to be with all of you and to say that justice ginsberg has understated her welcome. 80 days after my announcement, i received the package. -- two days after my announcement. instead of her manual, which did in fact arrive i think within the hour of my getting to my chambers was a caller from a per which -- was a collar and

there was a note that said "i hope that you will have use of this and." i was glad that she was there at the end of the process. that was comforting. she has offered great wisdom, much welcome and much fellowship. i am eternally grateful to hurt and i am glad that i have a chance to say thank you. [applause] there were two questions in your questions, what has surprised me the most and how is it different. you understand the demands if

you have experienced this. it is hard enough dealing with panels of three or five. once you start getting to nine people, it is an interesting process. to be more concrete, there are perhaps three things that have surprise me greatly. the first is the affection among the justices. one would not necessarily come to that conclusion from reading the spirited exchanges in some of the court's opinions. thi have heard ruth talk about their fellowship. i was always a little bit dubious. i no longer around.

these justices to really care about each other and most importantly, they respect each other. they disagree but they respect each other. that makes it challenging. when i listen to them talk in conference and i am participating in the conversation, i know that i am being challenged by the very best. that process is quite invigorating. there is a level of respect and affection that has surprised me. with it is the second most

surprising thing about my court hamas. i a enjoyed my previous assignments. i have never 7o)d@@@@@@ n, 2 feeling when you and you know

that everything that you do is being supported by a group of people who care as deeply as you do. that is not for myself but for my colleagues as well. the third is the point that ruth ray iised which is that this isa hard job. even when we are unanimous, there are arguments on each side of every case we get. that makes the process of deciding difficult in every case. i guess because i was on the court of appeals, as most of you are in immediate courts or courts of last resort and you

don't have the right to select your cases. you have a mixture of cases, some are more clear than others. not every case you are dealing with it is as hard. hear, it is different because we select the cases that we will review and we reviewed them because there is a split of opinion. each one presents a very serious challenge. >> you serve on a court with a new name, the supreme court of the u.k. to the question is, whether the move to a new building, whether the old court just got renamed or whether or not you are in a different institution? >> is a bit of both.

we are doing exactly the same job and it is the same people and we are mostly doing it in the same way. it is the same old institution. then, the law lords are a well- known brand. some people felt the welt, if it is not broke, don't fix it. what was the point to moving? if cost a lot of building. some of us were pleased to be out of the u.k. parliament. there has been a certain amount of the brouhaha in the press about parliamentarians and to the expenses they have been claiming. this is not a time to be associated with the u.k. parliament, i can tell you. we got out just in time.

what we are beginning to think about not doing a different job. we will never be the supreme court of the united states. of course, we used to be the supreme court of the united states. [laughter] [applause] but i think that you gave us up. we will never have exactly the same job that might two lovely colleagues have. but we do have a job that is more interesting all the time. there are no easy cases, are there? it also means that there are no boring cases whereas in every other level of judging, there are pouring cases. [laughter]

it's true, isn't it? there are 12 of us. we have to sit in an uneven number. we have never sat 11 but we are beginning to sit nine more and more frequently and i agree with you, that is a much more scary experience than sitting as one of five and you are much less likely to get your own way as well. >> justice ginsberg, you wrote and spoke about the fact that when you were the only woman, you thought that that was not a the enviable position and it was

important to have more women on the court. can you speak to the difference? >> sandra day o'connor was the lone woman for 12 years when i came on board. everyone understood that there was a woman on the supreme court but it did not sink again during our entire time together that there were a key. this organization was prescienct. they held a welcoming ceremony for me. they presented her with a t- shirt that said "i am routes, not sandra."

one lawyer or another would call me justice o'connor. that is one large difference. i don't think that everyone has called me justice been sotomayor. the solicitor general, but it did not sink in. what enormous difference it makes is for the public out there watching the court proceedings. it was not right that there should be only one woman on the bench. our law schools were close to 50% women. there are women are doing sometimes on both sides of the case and no one thinks that that is strange. there should be just one was wrong.

recently, there have been great changes. people asked me if i am disappointed and i say, i look to the north. we will get there not as rapidly as some people would like.

what a difference from the way it was. one night, we were players in henry the fifth. she has the line "happily, and woman's voice will do some good. indeed, it does. [applause] >> you are the only woman on your court. >> yes. >> do you see that affecting your work or your interactions with the lawyers? >> i have lost count of the number of times i have been called my lord.

you would think that they could tell the difference. we don't wear robes. it is even more apparent. there you go. i share all of ruth's opinions. i think it is a complete disgrace that there's only one woman on my court and that it took until 2004 for them to put a woman on my court. most of the rest of the world had managed to do it about 25 years earlier. in some cases, more. i hope it is not because they chose the wrong woman to put on the court. they have not yet found another one. you might think that if it was a wrong woman, they could find

another one quickly to sort of neutralize me. they don't seem to be doing that. part of the problem is the assumption that you have to make your way up through the legal profession, maybe your name and then in our case, made our way up through the various levels of the court of appeal and the house of lords or supreme court. because we have loads and loads of july 1st in -- of young women who joined the profession, that means that we have more than 10% of women on the high court but not amount -- but not much more than 10%. the overall proportion of women judges in the ordinary courts in england and wales is 18%. i bet it is better here.

>> this is a great deal better than 18%. we are improving but with a long way to go. >> there is a fabulous estate at about whether brenda how should be a lord. this is a terrific. and doctrine about how to do statutory and textual interpretation. >> the lords of appeal in ordinary were created in 1976. it says that the persons with particular qualifications could become board of appeals in ordinary. i wrote this piece same, am i really a law lord?

>> we were at lunch recently with your chief justice. he said there is a new selection process that has been instituted in england and i don't know if i am being indiscreet by asking you whether the new process holds greater hope than the old process for the more appointment of women. >> it might do in time. the women judges were very much in favor of having an independent judicial appointment commission. >> i don't think that the audience knows what happens. >> and the head of the judiciary was a lord chancellor who is a member of the government but he was a very senior and special member of the government. he used to recommend or make all of the judicial appointments and he had a staff that did this.

mostly, he relied on consulting the senior judiciary or members of the judiciary. he did also have the flexibility to be a little bit of brave. in 1994, for example, he was extremely brave. he appointed me to the supreme court. he appointed the first solicitor to be a high court judge. there was a bit of flexibility. now we have gone over to this marriage based commission which does all sorts of lovely things like having applications. no more of this. you have to put your hat in the ring. it does not rely so much on the secret soundings of the seniority to sherry.

-- senior judiciary. it has an exam, it has interviews. it does things the right way. we hope@@@ @ @ @ ,@ @ @ @ ms)rr ,

the feeling is still early days. we will see. >> there is one large difference between the supreme court of the u.k. and the u.s. supreme court. our court is composed of judges who were court of appeals judges. we have been criticized because we don't have any formal governors. we don't have any members of the bar. we were all judges. to an extent, that is unfair criticism because each of us had a formal life.

the argument is that to have a collegial body with understanding of all the people that we should draw from different in all quarters of the legal profession from politicians, practicing lawyers, judges and academics. the sense that i got is that this would not be susceptible in the uk system. >> technically, the qualifications are having held certain judicial posts. they had been qualified to practice for 15 years.

there have been people pointed direct from the bar to the house of lords. there used to be people directly from members of parliament. a conservative member of parliament was reported by the labor government. i don't know if that strikes you as shocking. the big thing that has changed is not so much of that but with one exception, i don't know the politics of my colleagues. we think that that is quite a good thing. . there is lots to be said in a

second tier appellate court from having lots of experiences, not necessarily political experiences. if you are a first tier, you know what it is like to be at the coal face. i would not like to have that responsibility. we are up in the clouds. we are miles away from this. we could have a range of different experiences.

>> what do you see the central challenges for your courts in the coming decade? >> the central challenges are not at the lofty level of the u.s. supreme court, it is the everyday justice that most people encounter. i don't think that we can take great pride in the state of many of our first instance courts. how you get the resources needed, i don't know?

the real problem is not at the top court level. it is where most people see justice for injustice administered. >> the challenges of funding. this is an audience that knows it firsthand and has entered many jurisdictions represented here of the enormous challenges of getting funding both for the courts. the two examples, i know that the new hampshire courts had to stop their jury trials for a couple of months last year. when i was in portland, the clerk's office was closed once a week for part of the time because there was not sufficient legislative resources going to support this

institution. the president has appointed a distinguished law professor to a special project to help get criminal-justice support for public defenders. we also have the shorthand here for legal services on the civil side. the whole apparatus of supporting justices is in question. the interface among the branches is obviously a part of the question of financing and funding. al doocy the relationship among cost of the branch is being extracted?

-- how the doocdo you see. >> are you a member of the house of lords? >> when a kick out the hereditary peers, they said that no hereditary peer can be a member of the tears apart from the '92 they saved. we are still members of the house of lords but we can no longer speak and vote. most of us did not any way on parliamentary business, that is no great shakes. some of the spent time talking to parliamentarians but not necessarily on importance. it is it a disgrace that the

civil courts are crumbling to bits. nobody really wants civil justice. fáthe civil courts are squeezed between the demands of the criminal courts and the demands of the legal aid budget. we now have a simple ministry of justice which is responsible for funding the lawyers. on the other hand, for funding the prisons. in between are the courts. the criminal courts get the lion's share of that and the civil courts to get very little. it is hard for us to say anything to the politicians about that. we are conscious about the fact that in the supreme court, we are not yet crumbling and we

look very guilty when we see our colleagues lower down who are crumbling. i don't know what we can do. >> i don't have any ideas about how we address that issue between the courts and the legislatures. i think long range, however, at least a former colleague of justice ginsberg has started a program in educating middle schoolers in the work of the court on the internet. when i flowfirst spoke to her at that project, i thought it was a brilliant idea. it surprises me often how i need congress people or people in the legislatures of states and their

lawyers and they distrust the courts. it is one thing when it is in on lawyer who might be unfamiliar with what the practices are of the court. it is a different thing when it is a trained lawyer who has not come out of law school and understanding the value in our place institutionally in our democracy. i happen to think that we have to spend more time in educating people before they grow up. i often tell groups to visit in every case before the supreme court, somebody is happy. whoever we have ruled in favor of.

someone is also unhappy. we are batting 50-50 virtually all the time. if we spend time educating . >> people have divided opinions.

it is virtually unknown in the rest of the world that most judges are elected and not appointed. people are going around the country trying to persuade legislators. she was in maryland just the other day to change from elected judges to amanda. if there was a reform i would make, it would be that. >> there is a u.s. supreme court

that decided the minnesota republican party versus white that there could be regulation of the method for campaigning for the position of judge. you are part of the dissent that argued that it would be, this is a different type of election. >> i called it the gertrude stein case. there was elections for the state senate and the state judiciary. my dissent was that the state of minnesota acted entirely in accordance with the first amendment when they said that the judicial office is not a political office and judges

should not be permitted to say -- if you elect me, i will be tough on crime. i will be strict@@@@@ @ @ #r . how if you do campaign with certain claims that may make you inappropriate to sit as a judge. there are young lawyers here. if you are advising young

lawyers about where their work is needed, kwla are the topics or the prodgeeths? one way to say this is, where are you starting? where would you put your focus? another would be to say where do you see top priorities now for people beginning their careers? careers, where do you see top priorities? what areas of lot, kinds the practice, or activities. is there a special suggestion that you have for women on those areas? >> i would like to say that your question implies a choice. women certainly do have that choice. if you think back to the not so good old days, there was not a

law firm in the entire city of new york that would give me a chance. it was bad enough that i was a woman but the killer was that i had a 4-year-old daughter when i graduated from law school. sandra day o'connor got her first job by saying she would work for free. after four months or so if you think i am valuable, you can take me on. the u.s. attorney's office, women could not the prosecutor's. why not? because of the stuff criminal types. what about those working as public defenders representing those tough types? there were so many closed doors. now they're open. that is an enormous change. you could not have asked that

kind of question in the late fifties because there were so few doors that were open to women. suppose there had been no discrimination proba. probably, she would be a retired partner in a well-known law firm. we did not have that option, and we had to find other ways. look where we ended up. [applause] [laughter] pa>> when i first went to cambridge to read a lot, i was

the first from my school to read law. -- to read law, i was the first from my school. i wanted to become a solicitor in at this small town in richmond. the original richmond, incidently. q. that one down the road is an upstart. [laughter] that was my ambition. i think it would have been more difficult to become the first woman clerk in that firm den to become the first war lord. >> currenand there is an assumpn that the areas of need have somehow changed through the years since ruth and lady hale

started. i suspect they have not been deal. there is still discrimination. there are still those that need qualified lawyers. there are poor people bringing civil actions to still need lawyers. i don't have advised about an area of law. i have advice on how to think about the choice.

find a job. use it to develop your skills. spend time learning about how to be a good lawyer first. once you have the skills that you can transfer to a lot of different choices. in whatever works that you are in, find those lawyers in that setting who are performing at their best. the second bit of advice, as your opportunity gross, pick those things that match what is your strong suit. for most of us here, to say that being a judge is the most

wonderful thing in the world, you say that so openly. i have met people who are judges who left because they hated it. you cannot make an assumption that because there is a need that you will be the best one to fill it. you have to find a need that you can give something to and it can give something back to you. you can do that in so many different ways. you don't have to serve in public interest jobs. you can go to a law firm and do business law. you can give your time to community service. my it vice generally is that. this is sort of on approach of looking at it not from the need of society because i think that there are so many that you could almost find anything that works

for you. >> as you look back on the kind of work that you did before you joined the bench, do you see a particular kind of work or skill that has been very informative for your current work? >> my dear husband occasionally said, ruth has the speech. , a law review article and there are very arious variations on te theme. the life of a law teacher, butof

an appellate advocate, a judge, there are great similarities. you do a lot of reading. a lot of thinking all by yourself. there is a classroom performance. there is the court room. then if you go back and there you are with just your small chamber staff and law clerks. you were thinking, reading, writing. that is why the transition to me for the bench was easier than it was for some of my colleagues because i had been doing just that. i was trying to write in such a way that at least the lawyers would understand what i was saying.

in that sense, i think that everything that i have done that has involved the same basic skills. >> do you see concurrences? >> definitely. people thought, how could she be a judge? she has not been a barrister all her life. did they not know that i spent my time reading, listening, thinking, judging and actually being very suspicious. if you spend your time with bright interested 18-21 year olds, you learn a lot about life, about linying, about judge thiing.

>> i don't know if there is any job that can prepare you to be a trial judge for general jurisdiction. you can do a lot to prepare yourself for a court of appeals or the supreme court because the issues are more pointed. they have been teed up for you. you can transfer those skills pretty easily. . .

>> for all of you out there, courts of general jurisdiction covers so many areas of law and so many different procedures and so many different situations that i do not know that there is a one job that will prepare you completely for it. i think that there is some commonality with other professions with respect to different kinds of court on the higher level. >> there is the debate on specialized jurisdiction to try

to capture expertise in particular areas. are you in favor of courts of general jurisdiction even with the difficulties and challenges that are entailed? >> no. [laughter] >> could i ask a question? the hardest thing that i found about being a trial judge was doing jury trials. a lot of my colleagues love them as well. i can understand that. that is what i knew from my previous experience being a trial judge -- previous experience. being a trial judge, that was not very different. obviously, there are things that you have to learn, but it was the jury trials were the tricky bit.

those court of appeals judges, -- one of our colleagues at the annual judicial conference for his circuit gives a prize to the district judge who was reversed on appeal and then vindicated. [laughter] [applause] >> you are all part of federations. it they are structured differently. -- they are structured differently. some of you are from abroad. how do you see this as a constraint or an opportunity in terms of the supreme court that

you sit on? >> can i start off? u@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

[captioning performed by the national captioning institute] d that they would merge in one parliament. scotland always regards itself as extremely special. only fairly reluctantly have agreed that the u.k.'s supreme court has something to say sometimes about scottish law. our federalism is completely different from yours, although we are making law as uniform and as consistent and that's correct and has just as the cast -- as it possibly can be carried -- and as just as it possibly can be. even on my bottom line >> -- >> even on my court, there are

so many issues that come before our courts and so i think that for our system it continues to evolve. is that a fair way to put it? >> that is a very fair way. part of our everyday fare, just before i came here, i received an application in new york state's highest court. it visits state law issues. depending on how that plays out, does the constitution say what

has occurred? we are dealing with a mix of state and federal laws and all the time -- laws all the time. one of the great advantages of our federalism is that the state experiments. they did not all have to do the same thing. one can experiment with choosing judges one way and another another way. the good system will be copied by others. >> chief justice warren burger

wrote was described as concerned that state issues were not being as well presented before the court and was helpful with the state attorney general's in preparing for arguments before the court. do you think that you would want to structure more relationships with state institutions so that there would be ways to have dialogue, either be coral -- e. -- either because the system is working well that the advocates are filing. would you increase the relationship? >> in the years that i have been in the court, the quality of

representation has gone up enormously. there are organizations that the national association of attorneys general -- there are opportunities to get expert help from people in the academy. georgetown law center has a moot court that they have designed to even look like the supreme court. it is a miniature. the carpet was copy, the lectern was copied, and advocates of states and cities sometimes use those facilities.

>> as to some of us who argue on behalf of private parties. georgetown is a first-come first-served on both sides of the case. as we are coming towards the end of the hour, i wanted to ask you all how the national association of women judges and the international association of women judges be of help to you? the second part of this question is, are their agendas or programs that you would commend it to these organizations -- that he would recommend to these organizations? >> i think that the soon-to-be president of the international association should lead off. [laughter] >> i was horribly afraid that

you were going to say that. the very first daithing is that the amazing thing is that the association of women judges can do is to offer one another and to support one another -- is to confirm one another and to support one another. i spent my life as one woman in a court of 12 people. they clearly think that i come from another planet. and from some extent, i have. it is a great joy for me to come along a gathering of women judges and those men and judges to understand what we are about.

i think that is the first thing that we can do. we can raise the profile of women issues. that is why we have a recruiting drive in the u.k.. i have got several of the men to join us. but they also realize that we are interested in this being important. there is a lot of work to be done. we never have any problem working out what we will have our annual conference on did it do you? conference on. do you? -- what we will have our annual

conference on. do you? we do have legislation which is designed to prevent errors in domestic violence there is a lot to be done, there. we need to find where they crossed jurisdictions. it is not too difficult to do. there are issues about women that crossed boundaries. there is a lot to do. >> i do not know that i have a lot to add. what i have found is that when you address any issue, whether it is homelessness among women

or if women are being treated fairly in the federal bankruptcy court as opposed to men. these are issues where the treatment of women has been received and has been different. i thank it has been with and that have brought those questions to the forefront and who have lobbied for attention to be paid. i think that each time we start looking at issues like homelessness or the treatment of groups in a bankruptcy court or if there is a gender bias in any court system, that you end up helping not just the targeted group, but the process as a whole. i do think that you have to accept that sometimes there are

issues that are looked at more acutely because you are a woman and you may begin to beat the drum a little earlier. that does not mean that men will not join you. many do. but it is white organizations like this are so important. >> when i was a member of the ninth circuit, we were concerned about whether women were being pointed -- appointed equally with men. the benefit was that before we did this inquiry, there was no central knowledge of how people were being appointed across the circuit. so, we both learned how people were being appointed as well as raising suggestions as how to create an appointment process that would enable qualified applicants to put their hat in the rain and gain appointments. -- in the brairing.

i can remember your convening a panel at one of the national association of women judges that i and several other law professors were on. i have to say that i remember coming in to the big hotel. i had come to other conferences to speak. there was this big sign that said "sign up to work in the kitchen for the homeless." i was struck that i was in a conference of committed people that were concerned about the society of which they are part.

there were targeted projects in the system. are there particular agendas you want to identify for these organizations? >> you have brought out the first faint. that is information -- the first thing that is information. -- the first thing. that is information. many were surprised by some of the things that went on. some judges thought that there was no bias at all. their eyes were really opened by that report. i think that the last barrier has come down on the supreme court and i think that you once

asked me about this. we had never, until this year, had a woman appointed special actor in a case where we are the court of first and last resort. now, we have a woman special master. >> it is a great opinion of who has standing to be in the original jurisdiction of the supreme court. justice ginsberg quoted justice o'connor earlier this evening by quoting shakespeare. happily, a woman spoke to me, do some good. boy, have women's voices done well. as i was thinking about this panel discussion, two women

writers came to mind. one begins the novel that says that we are in the middle of the story of women becoming full citizens and all of the complicated ways that that means in terms of citizenship and what we can participate in and help to generate understanding the rights that we have and making new ones. the three of you have helped us so much in gaining this citizenship opportunity that we are -- dating this citizenship. the other person that came to mind was virginia woolf, because in her wonderful book, she has a sentence that seems to capture the moment. she says that when a woman sees

is to become a protected profession, anything can happen. thank you so much for opening remarks. -- for your opening remarks. [applause] >> i want to thank all three justices for being with us. we have a little gift for you. just a moment. we have a little gift for you. from the national association of women judges, the scales of justice then, and we have one for each of -- the scales of justice pin. we have one for each of you.

i'd also brought you something special from alaska. the alaskan state gem is jade. the most beautiful is above the arctic circle. i have a in jade gift for each of you from alaska. [applause] thank you for being with us tonight.

among her many activities, and i do jupped score "many" was the important role she played as a minority peer advisor in her residence hall. a job which entailed holding office hours so students could seek her advice about issues pertaining to the minority -- their minority status, planning events to raise awareness on campus about diversity, serving as an advisor to the dormitories multicultural council.

training resident staff on how to respond to hate crimes and other diversity-related issues that unfortunately can arise on college campus. she also did all this while maintaining a -- an excellent grade-point average. she founded the progressive student of color caugous to address inequity on campus and after graduating from michigan, she worked for a progressive think tank, the center for

american progress in its youth organizing division. in the fall of 2007, she came to washington to attend law school at american university. an institution founded in the late 19th century by women who in their era provided outstanding role models for the women students. i note that tradition has -- i note that tradition has been stronging considered by professors at american. given her record of working to achieve fairness and justice for those who lack it, the national association of women judges is

delighted to award the award of justice to ms. singh. [applause] [applause] >> may she thrive and all of us in the pursuit of justice. [applause]

>> coming up, mike mccallister talks about humana and health care. at 6:40, house speaker nancy pelosi. and later, "washington journal" with your phone calls. >> our mission is to make the world more open and more connected. we do that by providing people a free tool where by they can provide information with anyone,

anywhere, any time. >> with more than 400 million users online, it is the fastest growing web site in the world. tim sparapani today on "the communicateors" on c-span. >> now an event with michael mccallister. he talks about rising costs in the u.s. health care system and the legislation making its way through congress. mr. mccallister speaks before the detroit economic club for about 45 minutes. >> thank you. as the presiding officer, i have been asked to do two things. one is to give a brief

reflection on the history of the detroit economic club and then introduce our speaker. when i reflect on the 75 year history of the detroit economic club, i think of my father, a son of detroit, a self-made man, and a member of the detroit economic club. my father was put in an orphanage when he was 5. he ran away at 13. that ended his formal schooling. he got into the peacetime navy, got out, and the only work he could find during the depression was in alaska, keeping a two- mile section of the railway between anchorage and fairbanks a free of snow. during those long winters, my father took out every book in anchorage and fairbanks

libraries. he took out every record. he taught himself english literature, mathematics, physics, and to enjoy opera. when he got out of the navy, he took advantage of the gi bill and tested out of all of high school, most of college, became a civil engineer, and was the assistant superintendent of the department of public works. he built the infrastructure, the sewer and water infrastructure, that this area has today. one of the proudest times of my life was when i had my first health-care executive job. my father brought me to the detroit economic club, to a meeting, to listen to the

important issues of the day. so when i reflect on the 75 year history of the detroit economic club, i think of my father, a man who struggled against absolutely impossible odds to become a success. he is a son of detroit. he is a member and was a member of the detroit economic club. he is what this region is all about, a beacon of hope in what we can all do together. thank you. [applause] now, it is my great pleasure to introduce mike mccallister, the president and ceo of humana. humana's president and chief executive officer, mike

mccallister has led the humana to a leadership position in the health benefit industry. during my tenure history as ceo, and over 30 years in the company -- i believe he started when he was 3? he has helped humana gained a reputation as the leading consumer company, leveraging processes and technology to deliver lower costs and a superior health-care experience for humana's 10.3 million members nationwide. under his direction, a humana is helping people achieve lifelong well-being. it is designed to empower employees and consumers to choose, finance, and use their health benefits with confidence and success. mike is ranked among the 100

most powerful people in health care by "modern healthcare." he was also named as one of the five ceos whose stock has posted the large@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ l about health care reform and is going to tell us all about it.

[applause] >> dottie, someone lied to you. i will start by saying that no one has a crystal ball. somewhere in this country, the president is speaking on the same subject. i guarantee he is attacking me as we stand here. but that is ok. we are big boys. the eggs for having me today. it is a pleasure. i am not going to try to walk through bills or proposals. nobody knows where this is going to end up over the next few weeks. some of the things being proposed are obvious. others are still to be determined. i will talk about some of the things driving where we are from

a health-care perspective and some structural things that might make a difference. i think it is basically trying to find a different approach to reform. we started talking 16 months ago about reform. now we are talking about insurance reform. things have changed. march 2000 was the first time i got in front of a group like this. i sat before a business group like this and said my industry did not like it much that health care was broken and that health insurance was broken. fundamentally, we have to change this system or the lack thereof if we are going to solve the problem. what is the problem? the problem is health care costs too much and is rising too fast. it is impossible for us to keep doing what we have been doing. it is not all the system. there are other things going on.

something we have tried to live with is that ultimately we, as consumers, are driving these costs in terms of how we interact with the system, what we know about it, how we treat ourselves, and how we treat the system. this concept of behavior change, which is very difficult and powerful, is at the heart of what we have to do as a nation to fundamentally fix this situation. in the rest of our economy, consumers control 70% of its. we are powerful consumers. and bad products and that services get crushed. in health care, it never happens. we are watching this now in an industry close to your heart. if you think about the implications, the automaker that has had the problem with accelerator's -- what consumers have done to deal with that product offering in the marketplace, whether it is right or fair, it is irrelevant. through the knowledge there is

an issue, consumers have responded. if i said your chance of dying from a bypass surgery will differ fivefold depending which hospital you choose, would you choose differently? we know from all of our evidence as consumers that we would, but we do not have that information. therefore, we cannot make that decision. we are not healthy. chronic illnesses represent a huge percentage of what we spend in health care. every single one of them is preventable. our own behavior sets up a scenario where costs are going to be impossible to slow down. two-thirds of americans are overweight. one-third are obese by definition. when you add the demographics of baby boomers entering that. in their life, costs are going to increase. we're approaching a problem much worse than today. we watch 142 hours of television

a month as americans. which are not moving very much. the cdc reports that seven chronic illnesses account for $1.10 trillion annually in this country. our weight is killing us. people have been before you before and said that if we lost weight would be great. it may be oversimplifying, but it is true. for someone with a bmi of under 25, the annual spending is about $3,500. if you are over 40, it is $7,600. it just keeps going. for someone with a high bmi, their costs are going to be 90% higher than somebody with a low one. it does matter. the question is what you do about it. it keeps growing faster and faster. you combine that with a lack of health literacy. people do not know much about

health. you will hear web folks talk about the incredible volume of people who go to the internet to seek out help information. what we know about all that is people go to seek information, but reading through what is good and trust the ball is totally -- good and trustable is impossible for the average person. we do not understand it. the data tells us that. we're talking about 90 million people who have difficulty understanding something simple like what it means to read a pill bottle, what doctors orders mean. they do not understand. from our perspective as a medicare player, we look at people readmitted to hospitals, people over 65. inevitably, there is a misunderstanding. one out of five people in the medicare program and up back inside the program inside -- end

up back inside the hospital within 30 days. they do not understand what they're asked to do. they do not take their medications properly. they do not have transportation. their social setting is unable to support them. it is all linked to this idea of understanding and being able to respond to non-methods for taking care of your health. we find it is a serious problem in the over 65 population. only 12% of people have proficient understanding of health information. we are overweight, we are gaining weight, we know what drives health care costs, we do not understand help literacy -- how are we going to manage our health if those are the drivers? we get higher costs and poor results. study after study will tell you that is the case. something must be done. what is normally the obvious

answer is the wrong one. for 40 years, everyone in this room has known how to be healthy. stop eating so much. get some exercise. stop smoking. quit drinking so much. we know what we are supposed to do, and yet we do not do it. preaching is not it. getting up and talking about it is not it. our behavior does not change. we have been doing it for generations. we have to find a way. this is going to be a long-term thing. we have to get people to happily choose a different approach. what gets people motivated to change their behavior? is it money, incentives, rewards, information? we do not yet know what it is. we have to find a way to get people to pursue this. the company has put our flag in the ground about this idea of well-being.

there is a lot of research out there which say there are five big buckets of well-being -- financial, health, a community. we can get there. it is a long haul. if we do not change this behavior concept, nothing we do in washington, nothing something like us would do -- nothing someone like us would do is going to make a difference. we need transparency of price and quality. if you knew what things cost, you would have a shot at getting better value for money. there is not one of you that can get up from this table and have the surgery somewhere in detroit -- would you be able to find that the price and quality of that service, the experience of the physician, the infection rates? that is not readily available. you cannot do it. that is not unique year. that is everywhere.

price and quality transparency is critical. how do you get that? we have to connect the system, make things easier to get at, make information actionable, make it interesting and fun to use. what that represents is the idea of consumer engagement. we are engaged as consumers elsewhere in our lives, but not in health care. we do not know how to do it. we are intimidated. at this point, what i would say to you is there is a combination of things. it is about as changing how we do things. it is pursuing technology. pares have a unique opportunity which we have failed to deliver historically. we sit in the middle of the data. we're the only participant that has a broad view of what happens to you as you move around health care. whatever you may do, it passes

through the financial system, which is us. we have a tremendous view into everything going on. we are in a good spot to help. we of not many useful in the past at making that data powerful. -- we have not been very useful in the past at making that data powerful. we are the only ones who can do that. if down the road we end up with a national connected system, that would be terrific. i do not know how that can be done. in the meantime, we are in a position. we have a responsibility to do better there. . .

once again, it is about how do we get you as an individual consumer to understand better what your choices are. we have been working on this inside of our own country for some time and we have some initial results that are promising it can work. we introduced weight management inside our own company. one thing is we are in a position where we can test things ourselves. before we go to the marketplace we have a population of people where we can put some pilots together and it works. so weight management, for example, our own people, 30,000. in a short period of time we

have had people drop their absenteism weight. we are trying to connect dots by 10% in a quick period of dime. talking about this and developing an environment can developing an environment can make a difference. a difference. 64% of people in stress reduction program reduced stress and the very first month. 71% of people and nutrition programs have changed the way they eat and just the first 30 days. we have also tried other things. this may sound strange but one problem is our children are overweight, as well. we thought might try to meet these kids were there are. what do kids do? they played a lot of games but to sit on the couch. there are connected to the internet. the question is connecting the idea of health and wellness to the things they do already rather than bringing them someplace else.

we introduced an idea called america's hp charge -- challenge. we took 2000 kids around the country and got them and a program connected into the internet or the work as teams and individuals to score currency by activity. they had an internet game that kept them together in a competitive environment. the results of that are remarkable. these kids got into it. activity shot up. the ones that benefited the most were the ones that were doing nothing. there are opportunities to do more of that. by the end of six months, these kids had walked or run 30,000 miles, twice around the equator during that period of time. it can be done. a survey after the program reflected that not only did

they enjoy it, they kept it up. i am not ready to declare victory but it looks like there is an opportunity through these techniques to produce sustainable behavior changes. the next thing we tried was bicycles. we took 1000 bicycles to@@@@@@@m it's when gasoline was $4 a gallon, so there were all sorts of things linked together, carbon footprints, all these things were out there. at the end of the day, we ended up with folks doing 7,500 rides, 14.6 metric tons of carbon footprint were reduced. what's different? bikes aren't different. what's new is data counter. so the fact that you can

actually measure what someone has done and tie it to an individual gives you some hope that through that you can then begin to get some behavior change on the same things that drive us every single day. i won't ask for a show of hands, but i bet every one of you has an airline frequent flier card in your pocket. i bet every one of you has gone out to use that airline because of that. that is a data change and a reward system based on flying that you somehow decided is in your best interest to take advantage of. , pedometers, whatever it might be. it is bringing back to health care that gives us some chance that we can signal behavior change over time. lastly, i will talk about what the industry needs to do about cooperation. if you look at banking, which can all walked into a bank in

rome and get cash. or alabama, or detroit and get money. why is that possible? it is because the banks cooperated on the standardization of technology and application and that opportunity in a way that make it convenient and easy to do business with them. in health care, we need to do the same type of thing. some years ago, we met with our biggest competitors in the state of florida. we came to a quick agreement that we were going to totally eliminate the nonsensical transactions. we developed a single standardized approach, offered it free to providers, the business model was basically built on the idea that we save as much money on our side that would allow us to pay for this. it is now moving across the country. virtually 100% of doctors and hospitals and for that use this put a 700 million transactions went across the platform this

year. it is now going into texas, mexico, and elsewhere. that is absolutely critical long-term. people like us step up to that and work together. we eliminate as much nonsense as possible. it has been a combination of things. working together, thinking differently, trying to use data, seeking out permanent behavior change. all of those things, i believe have the opportunity to begin to turn this thing around. in the meantime, we will fight to fight a ground the political system and how we provide financial protection. i will finish by talking for a second on this concept of wellness. it has been for the employers, you have an ambivalent attitude toward what does. is it worth it?

does it pay back? this wellness' alliance is going to spend a lot of time basically targeting that question. there are a number of believers among us. i am one of them. investing in our people does work if it is done smartly. i think these returns will be enough to save on a pure business perspective. i will help my people down this path. there is big upside and have great companies we are working with. i am looking forward to pursuing that and driving that agenda. i know i have questions here that will be specific which is fine. we can answer those. i want to make sure that we understand that whatever happens in washington for the next six months does not change the course of where this is going. we have to seek out other things. it is critical. they have long-term implications but if thank you for having me here today. [applause]

>> thank you. this is a nice softball question. thus the health-care sector generally have the same viewpoint on perform or do companies greatly differ? >> i can talk about the health insurance sector. we spend about a year and half before the last election asking us -- asking ourselves as an industry what our position will be. we knew there would be change needed. the health-insurance industry has reached a credible consensus around a number of very specific things that have to be done to fix the system. where were actively involved in the conversation to last year. the answer is yes, we are reasonably well united around the basic ideas of what has to be done. there are other components of the system that might disagree with us. our group, at least, is unified. >> is it now or never for health-care overhaul?

>> if history is any guide, if we do nothing, it could be a while before return to this. if nothing happens, we can come back. that might be the right idea. it is very difficult to get comprehensive things of the scale through the political process in this country. if this comprehensive thing does not happen, and other comprehensive thing will be impossible for quite a while. that does not say we cannot come back into other things. i think we are going to have to get this big thing does not happen. we have to do other things because we cannot do nothing. >> some actuarial said that medicare is to bring to the bankrupt by 2015 or 2017. what are your thoughts on that? >> i do not have to speculate. the math is straight forward. medicare is $38 trillion underfunded. we are having this big debate about medicare advantage and how we should be paid. i would argue, and i say this

all the time, our medicare program must have the best known management methods from the private sector applied to the population. whether we ultimately have to change our commitment to people over 65 is another question. policymakers will have to deal with that. we cannot have out control medicare programs continue on the track they are on. this will bring significant value to hoping rationalize all that. without question, and the future is very bleak. it is pure math. >> a corollary to that question, what happens in 10, 15, or 20 years if no health care reform is enacted? >> i have said all along, the path we are on is unsustainable. you are business people. how much of your business can you have consumed by this cost? i am a member of the business roundtable pulled every quarter,

when we are asked our biggest challenges, number one is always health care. the answer is that we cannot stay on the track we are on. the solutions are not lending themselves to quick answers or simplistic political answers. it is going to take an awful lot. some things i described are very difficult. it will take a while. they must happen for some of this to be solved. there has to be a combination of how we finance this, what is our intent, or we try to finance all of health care or provide insurance? it is a combination of the financing, rationalizing the delivery system, and others. and the amount of waste is mind- boggling. it is somewhere between 10% and 50% of all health care is no value added. we have structural issues. we have demographic issues. we have behavioral issues

driving all this. we have been unable to drive productivity. i use those terms a lot which are not terms to hear a lot in health care. productivity does not pop up. that is exactly what we are talking about. we have to drive productivity. >> a bit more granular. if you were a hospital, what would you do to prepare for health care reform? >> i used to be a hospital administrator for 20 years. i have a lot of friends on that side of the table. i would suggest this idea of productivity becoming front and center. at dulles and any part of the delivery system, i would ask myself how do i drive higher productivity and how the wind by doing that? the idea of same old activities is not going to work. we have to find higher

productivity put up to the extent that there is some waste or abuse and side of the hospital system, how you get that out? what is the economic model so someone is incentivized to do that? there are conversations around that are directed at that. you may have heard the concept of a aco. that is a baby step toward driving incentives. that will at the end of the date drive productivity. >> reflecting on the u.s. national transportation investment rules and regulations and restrictions, why can we not force commonality into the process these -- processes? >> i guess we could put him there was never enough political courage to do such a thing. when i give you an example of

this technology availability, that is exactly what that is. that is a recognition that we need a standardized approach to at least the non value added things in the industry to make them as efficient and low-cost as possible. whether there is a role for the federal government, we think there is. we have been saying for years that the government should help us with i.t. standards. there is a significant amount of money in the stimulus program toward i.t.. that will drive some of the standards and move the ball up the field. on health i.t., i am reasonably optimistic. >> let's shift back to the other end of the spectrum and go back to the wellness area you are interested in. well this is great but there is no money in it. -- wellness is great but how we

to make sure it could be paid for quest or >> that is where i was going. one of the things i keep working on is if i can find a business model consist every time i dropped somebody's bmi by one point or a population's bmi by one point, that isx s, we have yet to find a solid business model for that. body mass index. pick a white -- take your weight and height and figure out where we are. we have two sets of data to work with. we have the bmi on everybody that works for us. you can look at medical spending inside our company based on that bmi measure. it is predictably like i described. in my own company, the people that people abmi about 30 spend

almost all the money. -- about 30 spent almost all of the money. i am spending a couple hundred million dollars a year on health care. as i can lower the body mass index of my people and know that it by doing so i could take $25 million out of my health care spending, i would be all over that. i do not know how to do that yet but that is what i am working on. i will be back to report on that. >> there is a lot of research that indicates that there are obesity problems and a lack of understanding of the nutritional value of food or food products we eat. where does nutrition education fit into your wellness agenda? >> i have a couple of schools i am working with to try this idea. i am a big believer that people learn how to do these things the very young. the school district where our home office came to us and wanted to know if we would work with them on health the magnet

schools. we started working on curriculum. what would it mean to have to help the school? one thing that is part of that is a very comprehensive approach to everything. if you were going to teach math, cannot teach how for a car or train goes over time. teach the content of a piece of pipe versus a piece of bread. build it into your math curriculum. that kind of thing, we are also trying to drive this idea. kids are going to go into mcdonald's. when they go in, did they know what to eat? meet people were there are. kids especially. figure out how they live their lives, where to eat, what do they eat, and can you make them make better choices? the last part is that the parents come in and teach parents how to cook so that at home, whatever to do at school is relatively irrelevant at that home to experience something completely different. i think it is doable.