legislator. people send you up here for a reason. >> thank you. do not worry. i have my notebook on how to be successful in the minority party. i will pass that on to you in 2012. we have some big elections in arkansas during this cycle. there is no secret that it is difficult. in arkansas, it is unique. we have a super majority thresholds on appropriations bills. that gives us a little bit more impact than maybe some states where there is a simple majority. in arkansas, that was impact will in the way we approach to the budget. undoubtedly, the republicans have the highest numbers of legislators in the legislature

than ever before. there is always the charge of partisanship and things like that. when you have a debate that never existed before, it is challenging. i am the -- i was always aware that you should not paint yourself into a corner. the example i always used was the bands marching down the road and there is nowhere to go so they walk into the wall. how do you successfully impact the process in policy but not lock yourself in? view cannot vote and compromise. there are people in arkansas who would keep you a different -- you cannot vote and compromise. there are people in arkansas who would give you a different point of view. the fiscal session we just came out of did not change the budget that much. at the end of the day, we still had one of the short secessions

we ever had. we still pass the budget and we left on time. -- we had one of the shortest sessions we ever had. we were elected for a job and we were there for a reason. you want to make sure you end up with the final product and you all leave and go home and can talk about what you have done. >> before we move on, to defer -- jennifer, certification in the minority party and you are currently in the -- jennifer, you served in the minority party and now are in the majority. >> the pendulum switches all the time. the best advice i got was to work both sides of the aisle. it was probably the best it buys i ever got. part of my job working for her

-- it was probably the best advice i ever got. each and every session, i took notes for our caucus. i have great friends and staff -- if you treat people as people and find common ground, that will help on the floor. things in wisconsin are a little strange. that is putting it mildly. for me, having been mentored to work both sides of the aisle, this past session has been a struggle for me because of the relationships i have made. i would encourage people to try to reach across the aisle in the best way you can, especially with staffers. dogs avoid talking to someone because -- don't just avoid talking to someone because they

are in a different party. >> i agree with that. definitely work both sides of the aisle. in illinois, the pendulum has not swung in a while. we have been in a position to bid -- to be able to have a great legislative impact. as far as being a part of staff and being on the floor for a particular votes, a lot of the things we do our important. even on those nonpartisan things, it is important to work both sides of the aisle so that they know you are not just trying to jab them. when those things come down you say, i will let you know this thing is coming. that is the way it is. >> anybody else from the floor? >> i am out of utah. several of you mentioned from the beginning that he struggled with a legislative changes that

you wanted to make that you were confronted with and you were confronted with tradition. we try to make changes in our own legislature. that has been my largest obstacle. we have always done it that way. what has been the one thing that has been the most effective tool you have used or the strategy to affect change on a larger scale in the face of "because we have always done it that way"? >> my experience is probably unique. i would like to think i singlehandedly changed the entire way things were done in arkansas. that is probably not the case. i probably got in the holiday when the tide was going up. -- got in the vote in the -- been -- when the tide was going

up. they pass restrictive term limits. it began in past -- they passed restrictive term limits. after term limits kick in, they served in the house and then went to the senate. the poll limitation of those term limits are -- the old limit of those term limits are finally happening -- the full limit of those term limits are finally happening. we have 28 republicans out of 100 in the house. now we have 46. we will probably add to that number in the election. anytime you have a change or addition in the party, you will have a change in structure. it is easier to implement some of those changes if you are

coming in and the majority party had numbers that were the same and the same people were there for 20 or 30 years. it is more difficult that it would be in arkansas or other places. >> in missouri, it will come down to relationship building. would there be one thing i have done? in short, no. if we used to do it, why did we do it? explain to me the significance of this happening. having those discussions and building those relationships across the aisle and other individuals saying, why are we doing this? why are some bills getting properly vetted?

we have had a few issues coming back that were not properly looked at. if measures would have been taken before hand, we would have never been in that situation. it is having that discussion personally, that is what i have been doing. i have been building a relationship with the majority party that will go to higher positions so that they can make those changes. >> yidhs, -- tisha, do you want to jump in and look at it from an administrative point of view? >> sure. part of it involves perseverance. they might be waiting for the right time. i also feel like part of it has also been me realizing that

tradition in alaska -- our precedents are rules. that is the way it has been done. it is frustrating sometimes because i am a young person. i have also learned to see how it is functional. it has been a balance. some battles we are citing might take some time. i work with some people who are open-minded and respectful of new ideas. those things really help. i guess that would be my thoughts. >> look at the time. we have to wrap it up in a minute or so. one last question. you can repeat your answers. we have two elected officials. in 10 words or less -- since we

started with john, we will start with clem -- what has been the thing that most surprised you about being a lyoung legislator? >> i will try to do this in 10 words or less. i am trying to think. it may be the perspective, the way i see things and how some things go away. i see a new way. it was easy in some instances. being young and bringing a new perspective -- that was being able to visualize an issue that people have been looking at for years in a different way and bringing in that perspective. >> do not let a stop you from making a change.

i see it each and every day. do not be discouraged. you can make a difference. >> being a young professional, the best way to build a yourself is having success stories. you have success once and you build on that. i think that is one of the things that young professionals needed. one success story. you keep building. >> and just make the most of what you have got. there are lots of different -- i discovered a lot of opportunities that i did not see a initially and expanded those. i really enjoyed that. that was more than 10 words. [laughter] >> people are as loyal to you as you are helpful to them. be a giver. >> i want to thank all our

panelists. thank all of you for attending. we will be here if you want to ask us any questions afterwards. have a great time in chicago. [applause] >> tomorrow, the young professionals. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> our coverage of the convention starts monday. every moment of every speech live. featured speakers include anne romney, chris christie, paul ryan delivers his vice presidential acceptance speech, and on wednesday, mitt romney. what web exclusive video feeds. create and share video clips. connect with other viewers at c-

span.org/campaign2012. >> a discussion on border and environmental issues. we will hear from both navy and coast guard. after that, the head of the british naval intelligence service delivers a speech. she was the first woman appointed director general of mi5. you can see her comments tonight at 9:15 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> i think our job is not to ask lots of questions. >> juliana goldman became

bloomberg's washington correspondent in 2009. >> we wanted to get their answers out of him. that is how i approach my job. i am not looking to catch wind -- when jay carney does a press briefing, i am not looking to catch him in a contradiction. i want to get information to inform people with. >> more with her sunday at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's "q & a." >> up next, arne duncan on childhood hunger in schools. he has called on community to step up and increase communication with parents and teachers. teachers have seen students regularly call entry in the classroom. this is about 50 minutes.

>> good morning, everyone. welcome to northwestern high school. i would like to recognize our students. that is why we are all here together. the status with the choir and the students with the navy rotc. i am the principle here at northwestern. i have been in education for 14 years. i am here to tell you that the report about hunger in the classroom. it is a true issue. is a problem in many school districts. in order to close gaps, you must increase opportunity. we talk about opportunity every day and how students must take advantage of the opportunities we give them. we have a rigorous curriculum

with a focus on college and career with great teachers and -- students' basic kneels basic needs are not met. the expectation of being a world-class student becomes more difficult. we know that when a student starts the day with breakfast, they are able to focus on teachers' instructions. they are in class ready to learn. they respond appropriately to various situations. this is why school breakfast is so important. with the partnership with share our strength, we will provide opportunities for our students to start their day not really hungry. at our school, we have 89% of our students receiving free and reduced meals. that is not a barrier for our success. our schools have been trying to

make school breakfast part of every student's morning by making breakfast part of the morning routine so that academic performance can increase. today, the most important thing is that we give our children the opportunity to succeed and do this making certain that they do not go hungry in the classroom. thank you so much for attending. enjoy this panel discussion. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. how is everyone doing? good to be here, the home of the wildcats. principle, i want to thank you for the work you do here. -- prince of paul -- principal, i want to thank you for the work you do here.

can we give the students a round of applause? [applause] i am also please we are joined here by a senator who is committed to education. let's give him some applause. [applause] and michael summers from the 47 district. let's give him a round of applause. [applause] i want to thank the school board for moving the district for work. i also want to recognize and pay the fine job we have done for the past six years -- i also the fine jobgnize an they have done for the past six years. secretary duncan, thank you for coming to northwestern and helping us understand the correlation between hunger and

education. our governor were here, he would tell you he gets it. that is why, for the fourth year in a row, maryland has been first in education because we understand you must make sure our children have a nutritious meal in the morning so they are ready to learn. as many of you know, i've business schools each week. this past week, i visited several in two days. i want the young people in our schools to understand and i want the county to understand how important education is to us in this county. the one thing we do get and we are glad you are doing this event here today -- our children cannot learn if they are hungry. have to be ready when they walk in the door. we here in prince george's county understand that. we have challenges like everyone else. this is an important date for us

and an important finding. with that -- this is an important day for us and an important finding. i will introduce tom nelson, the head of a national nonprofit committed to childhood hunger and connected kids would nutritious foods and teaching families to cook healthy and affordable meals. he oversees the day-to-day operation that provides the leadership or the nokia and hungry campaign. he will bring us a survey and kick us off. thank you for being here. [applause] >> good morning. thank you and thanks for the warm welcome to york county and for your strong leadership and commitment to education day in and day out. al.nks to the principl

we are delighted to be here at this school and to the students, staff, and kitchen workers who prepared the meals for the kids. [applause] thank you. i will introduce each of the panelists before they speak. we are joined from the prince george's county board of education by amber and henry. welcome to both of you. it is particularly nice to welcome from the white house paul and tory. we are delighted you are with us today. thank you. [applause] we have a distinguished panel with us today. there was a reference made to your government -- to your governor who hopes to be here today. he ended up with a scheduling conflict that he could not resolve.

his commitment has made maryland's number 1 in education year after year. he has been -- he has made -- his commitment has made maryland no. 1 in education year after year. -- number 1 in education year after year. i want to thank cns groceries, without whom we would have nothing to talk about. we have an organization that has worked with us to develop a tool kit for teachers and administrators about how you implement programs like alternative breakfast. thank you, nea. [applause] so here we are at northwestern high school three days into the new year. all around the country, schools

are opening. parents are sending their kids off to school. what do parents tell their kids on the first day of school? i remember what they told me in my house and what i told my kids. stay out of trouble. do your homework. listen to your teacher. and that is our message today. we, as a country, need to listen to our teachers. what are they telling us? that is what this research we have just completed and are releasing today is all about. what are teachers telling us. they are telling us that hunger is a problem day in and day out. 75% are telling us that hundred needs to be a national priority for this country, tackling the issue of hunger in the classroom.

three out of five teachers regularly see students in their classroom who are hungry. those who do see students who are hard -- who are hungry at least once a week. perhaps most telling, teachers are telling us this problem is getting worse. over half the teachers we survey said that hunter is worse this year than the year before. -- hunger is worst this year than the year before. they are wise teachers and they know there are solutions. the majority of teachers say the school meal programs are a primary source of nutrition for their students. even more importantly, they put a spotlight on the importance of breakfast. 90% of teachers say that breakfast is important to the

academic success of their students. without breakfast, kids cannot concentrate, they have behavioral problems, academic performance suffers, they have health issues and absenteeism and tardiness goes up. with breakfast, those same factors that determine academic success, factors like the ability to concentrate, pay attention, the hague, show up in the classroom, not get -- pay attention, behave, show up in the classroom. there are real barriers. there are kids who are late to school. three-quarters of teachers say they see that problem with buses not getting students to school on time. the issue of stigma is important.

and the fact that many parents are not aware of these programs. our survey research also tells us that this is clearly a solvable problem. right now in this country we have about 20 million kids who are eligible for free or reduced lunch in their schools. those kids are also eligible for breakfast. yet less than half of them are getting the breakfast that is there for them. over 10 million kids eligible, but not being able to take advantage. what are we able to do. ? teachers tell us we need to break down the barriers and increase participation. teachers say we need to increase the communication with parents. two-thirds say reduce the red tape to put things like alternative breakfast in place and reduce the stigma. that is what we are all about.

the work that the partnership to end childhood hunger in maryland is focused on is a program called maryland first class breakfast. that is going to change these numbers. that is going to change the ability of our kids to be ready to learn. we have got a terrific panel. we will -- they will share their thoughts on why we have this problem in this country and what are the solutions. i will ask each of the panel ists to take it you must to offer their observations. then we will have a discussion and take some questions from the audience. it is a real treat for all of us to have with us today secretary of education arne duncan. he is going to be our first speaker. he had an extraordinary record in the department of education or making a number of significant changes to our

educational system that really are transforming schools in this country with new staff, new teaching methods, increase learning time -- increase learning time, and a greater commitment -- increased learning time and a commitment to breakfast in schools. please welcome arne duncan. [applause] >> thank you for having me here today. i will keep my remarks brief. if we can just give a round of applause super -- a big fan of his. whatever we can do to be a good partner, we want to do that. this one is really personal. those of you who know me know how influential my mother's

program was. she started in 1961. i was born in 1964. i was going to a national school program before i went to a regular school. what she did every morning before school is that she fed them. red and cheese sandwiches. every single -- bread and cheese sandwiches. every day she went to the grocery store and bought cheese and big buckets of apples. if children's stomachs are growling, it is hard to concentrate. we should not put any child in that situation. we are talking about more kids graduating from high school, going on to college. any physical, social, emotional barriers that affect them, we have to create the opportunity for every single young person to fulfil their academic and social potential. this is a huge challenge. i think this one is not rocket

science. time hit on the crux of the issue. -- tom hit on the crux of the issue. we have 10 million children eligible for school breakfast and are not receiving them. i want to thank the usda. tom and them have been great in making school lunches -- school breakfast more acceptable. they have a chance to do so much better. before i came to d.c., i lead 7 1/2hicago schools for seve years. it was not fair to send children home at night if they were country. we sent home on friday

afternoon to a couple thousand students bags of food for the weekend. we had great community partners. share our strength has been an amazing champion, and i want to thank the team for their leadership, bringing in as nonprofits, social service agencies, partnering with teachers. this is one we can solve and i would love to see us make huge headway this school year. thank you for your commitment to making sure our students are extraordinarily successful. >> thank you for your leadership. the next speaker is the deputy undersecretary for food and nutrition, janey thornton. she oversees the 15 huge national programs that make sure there is food, nutrition, for

our children. and warm welcome for dr. thornton. >> thank you so much. this is a very exciting time to be in schools from the school nutrition perspective. for the first time in many years, we have a new deal pattern that you have read a lot about in the newspapers. we are looking to see now what we need to be serving to make kids healthier. we know we have lots of health problems in this country. many of them are related to obesity. while it is not just a problem in schools, schools have a role to play in that. we will see more whole grains, more fruits and vegetables, and we will help kids learn how they need to eat each and every day. not just at school, but at home

as well. and understand it is not just what they are eating come it is amounts of food they're eating. we think this is critical, and we can play a part in helping that turn around. i do not know that i can ever remember in my 40-plus years in the educational arena -- and i was a former teacher -- and remember having kids in my classroom, that it was hard to keep them awake, and realizing it was not their fault, but it was the fault of folks they were with, and maybe not even those folks' fault. maybe they had no means to get the food. we understand and know the difference that a kid having food makes to that child in the classroom and their ability to learn. when we are in tight budget times, we need to understand to get the most out of that educational dollar we need to

have kids that have been well nourished so they are ready to learn. the first lady's let's move campaign has done so much to help us realize that physical activity and nutrition have to work hand in hand to be a healthy person. it is important as we are implementing the new meal pattern, and as it seems like everybody is so anxious to point fingers to say who is to blame for the societal issues we're facing right now to get up every day and look in the mirror and say, where everett is that i am sitting, whether it is a teacher in the classroom or perhaps it is someone in the state department of education or perhaps it might be that person back there in the cafeteria in the kitchen of working so hard to prepare meals, can i do to

make a difference today in the lives of the children that i influence? if we can all work together in partnership, we truly can make a difference in the lives of kids today, and, therefore, the health and well-being of our country as a whole tomorrow. i am so excited and appreciative it to be part of this panel today, and i look forward to the remaining comments and questions and answers we have later. fenty. -- thank you. >> the next guest is anne sheridan. she is a veteran of political campaigns, and now she is leading our campaign to make sure no kid goes hungry. >> thank you, and in addition, i

partnered in maryland, and i appreciate to talk about what is happening in maryland. i want to thank to county executive baker, and arne duncan, and my fellow panelists. maryland is an affluent state, and yet we do not have a single juror station that is hunker free. in 2008, with leadership from the governor, the partnership to end child hunger was created to launch a partnership, and this was a way to bring everyone into this conversation, to give everyone a row of something to do that could address our very big challenge here in maryland. basicg every child's most need is a precursor to a good experience in school.

what have we done? the partnership has set goals for helping connect more children to meals. we have begged, borrowed, we have stolen, and we have tried to implement strategies to get that done, and hopefully we will talk about those this morning. we have provided a literal and figurative table for people to come together and help us tackle this issue. we have a wonderful partners. i had to give a shout out to our partners here, the maryland state department of education, also to our colleagues maryland hundred solutions, and i am excited we are welcoming two newt statewide partners today, the maryland retired school personnel association, and the maryland state education association. to your teams, thank you so much. we are looking forward to working but you and to great

contributions from both partners. we're making progress. from march, 2011, until march, 2012, we added 17,000 new kids eating practice -- eating breakfast every day. our goal is to do another 24,000. we can do this. but listening to the findings , we have to be listening to our teachers. we must be moved by these findings. they are the real experience that everybody is facing and we have to keep going. thank you so much. [applause] >> thank you for your leadership and the progress we have made and the work we still have ahead of us. the next speaker is the chair of the prince george's county board of education, verjeana jacobs.

she is a longtime champion couples a variety of social -- she is a longtime champion of a variety of social issues. >> thank you. over the last six years in our district has been in reform, and reform, and education has been at the forefront of that work. why is that important? we see the way we serve meals to our students is a part of that reform effort. we see this issue as a great area that we need -- that we have been and need to continue around student achievement. i want to welcome the -- i want to echo the welcomes to the executives this morning. when you are hungry and not getting nutrition you need, you cannot concentrate. when we see that as adults, imagine what that is for children.

our teachers are the ones telling us exactly what is happening and what the deficiencies are. we have decided we need to look at partners and how can we better serve our students? adding more than half of our students living -- having more than half of our students living in poverty, we see there is much more to be done. if you think nontraditional ways is not working, we have the cafeteria style, but we also have grabbed-and-don't meals. last year there was a contest, and having the greatest number of increases in participation, but seven of the 10 schools in prince tortoise county were top performing in that initiative.

-- in prince george's county board top performing in that initiative. if we can see them and get them what they need to be strong partners in the classroom with teachers, no we are able to ensure they are successful. we look forward to your questions, and i would like to thank everyone for bringing this to the forefront. if we make sure we are paying attention to what the needs of children are, we can be successful, and we see that as part of our reform efforts in prince george's county. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. you have heard from four distinguished panelists. our last panelist speaks with the voice of authority. she is a mother who has a daughter who participates in

that school breakfast program in maryland. a warm welcome to our last panelist, lareese cathey. we're glad you are here. maybe you can share with us from your perspective why the school breakfast program is important to your family, and to your daughter. >> take you, everyone, for having me here. it is very important. i see the change in test scores. my daughter's excitement in the classroom. hurt trying to -- hurt trying to -- is easier for her to try to eat cereal without its charter, but she is being introduced to her but other people. it is something when other people introduced something to your kid other than you try any to.

i had noticed if we are rushing for some reason in the warning -- morning, when she comes home and tells me how her day went, it is not as good as if she had a regular day, she ate her breakfast. as a parent, i see the difference. it is important for us parents to make sure this is -- the needs are being met for our children. i want to commend you guys on the job you are doing. it is a good thing. it is helping me out to get my daughter to try new things, and even my son. he is going to be in elementary school this year. to get him to try new things, it will help me out. it is hard for me to say try

something new. the same way it works for my daughter it will work for my son, and it has been a blessing to be in maryland. i have been here for five years, and i like it here and i love what you do, and thank you for having me. >> thank you. [applause] >> i told you she would have a lot of wisdom and speak the truth. thank you so much, lareese. i will ask one question and then we will go to the floor. people have questions. we have a couple of people who are collecting them. if you send them in, we will get to them. secretary duncan, teachers, they are on the front line, teachers

and administrators. from your vantage point, what would you like to see, what can teachers be doing that with help tackle this problem? >> teachers cannot do this by themselves, so they are doing and making -- an amazing job. i cannot tell you how many teachers spend money out of their own pockets. principals, parents, community members have to step up and be part of the solution. whatever we can do to close the -- we have eligible to work with parents, communities, to remove your credit obstacles, and we have to challenge bad habits. how many times in the morning do we go to a middle or high

school and you see children walking around with a bag of chips at a can of pop? that is what many young folks have done for a long time unchecked. listen to teachers, here in need of students, and hold ourselves accountable, closing the gap between 10 million participating and 20 million eligible. >> one of the teachers in our survey had that comment about seeing a young child coming into school. john, did you have breakfast? yes, i have a coke and some chips. that is part of the message we need to deliver. undersecretary, you have a long history in nutrition to make sure there are good meals in front of kids.

your agency has a huge role. what do you think are the possibilities in terms of bringing in the nonprofit sector, other players, and several of this have made reference to this. what are your thoughts on how we bring folks to get around this? >> i could not agree with you more. the federal government cannot and should not be expected to make change at a local level by themselves. we can work on policy, but it is going to take communication and people working together, even though people in schools might reach out and they may voice their concerns and their challenges. it takes community organizations to verify this is a neat, to get everybody to understand that they have a role to play and make sure that they are in the spotlight so that they are held

accountable for making sure that our children have what they need to be ready to learn in school. communication, i cannot speak about enough. not just on what is going on and how we can share all of the great things that you all are doing in maryland and across the country, but specific ideas for schools and for school districts, because we do not have to reinvent the wheel. there are so many great things going on. we need to get the word out and let people understand that they have that role they can play as well, that is working together to make a difference. what we also need is when there are challenges out there, we need to hear about them at the federal government.

secretary bill sack said to me and others when we first came -- secretary vilsack said to me and others when we first cannot that people are our bosses, and we need to do everything we can get this corrected. again, communication is the key. >> that's get more specific in terms of maryland and billing on comments that are working. we go to anne, and can you tell us about, here in maryland, you talk about maryland first-class breakfast. what specifically can we be looking for to see happening in maryland? >> the program is a great program. the reality is that a lot of things have to go right to turn

over all dollar into reaching a real child every day. generally, we think we have the right partners, have that strategy to talk about one, and the first-class breakfast initiative, we have to the commitment of a large number of partners this year, we will bring alternative breakfasts to 170 schools in maryland. this is a our brain trust for breakfast. this wonderful teen is reaching out to each of these schools, working with them, providing assistance and funds to. this is a real hands on think that is happening and we are

encouraged by the results, and have to keep going, but we see this is the sort of partnership that can bring real change, and i would also like to thank principal batenga. >> let's get more specific in terms of prince george's county. ms. jacobs, you have spoken about how we can get children to breakfast. can you give us more detail. >> you heard about the first- class breakfast and issue that. prince george's county as 40 schools participating. principals are here, and the other initiative is the maryland meals for achievement. principals who are here, can you wait your hands -- a new wave

your hands-- can you wave your hands? 27 schools in maryland are participating in the maryland meals for achievement, and what we know is the work we are doing for kids around serving breakfast in a different way is making a difference in prince george's county. i wanted to think an individual who is responsible for helping us to bring these programs to our school system. when we think about how we have done this work, at the end of the date we know our partnerships will make the difference, and i think additionally our teachers and administrators, principal batenga, when you have 60% in your school district and 89% in

one school that suffers from these issues, is a big deal. it takes a collaborative effort, and that is what is happening in prince george's county. we're pleased that we want to increase that effort. >> thank you very much. [applause] we have a couple student representatives. >> good morning. i am a senior in high school. the first question is for dr. thornton. hal our kids liking their new -- howl our kids liking their new -- how our kids liking their food options? >> kids are accepting the new foods with smiles. it is a change.

we are very excited have that opportunity to help kids learn about those new foods. >> they are telling mom they tried this. next question. >> good morning. i senior in high school and the president here at northwestern high school. this question reads northwestern high school sits across the street from a major research university. what role can university play? >> i was looking down at -- h ere. >> we park with the university in many areas, and with the university being a major university with regard to agriculture, i think that is a great question, and one in which

as we continue our partners in other areas is remarkable. that me give you examples of what thoughts come to mind. we have our first lady clearly has an initiative where they are growing the foods in the backyard of the white house. if we look at how we teach students that their nutrition is important, if you put them on the front line and be a part of the process of growing, we can look at the university as a partner, and ask them how they can best help us as a school district. >> thank you. >> good morning. i am also a senior at northwestern. the question is for the secretary. somebody asked, what did you have for breakfast this morning?

[laughter] >> not a bag of chips and a pop. i had a big bowl of granola. i hope that passes the test. >> another question? >> can you talk about successful wadys to partner breakfast programs with extended-learning programs? >> in addition to everything we are doing to increase participation, maryland was a state. anyone in the state who is providing programming and after- school hours can serve meals to children and being reimbursed. we're thrilled in the first three years of that program we have had a strong partner step up the plate and figure out how

to make this work. last month we were serving 13,000 suppers. we see that need. we see kids who are doing after- school activities, they need and depend on that extra meal, and this is another of the wonderful child nutrition programs that we need to be taking advantage of. >> we were talking about breakfast today, but after school meals are reference. we talk about summer programs, and one of the things we learned in our research is the importance of having not just the meal, but a rich programming. that was the message that came clear from parents. it is great that code, but if it can be with an enrichment program, that is a big win, and makes coming to those programs more attractive. a good question.

next question. >> most people do not know about this problem or the solution. how do you plan on going about raising awareness? >> i would like to hear from several of the panelists, starting with the secretary. lack of awareness is a huge issue. >> that is the crux of the problem, and the answers are out there. it is a lack of honest conversation. it is incumbent upon us in the usda collectively to reach out to principals, superintendents, teachers, parents, students themselves and make them aware of opportunities that are there. where there are bureaucratic impediments, where we slowed down the process, we make changes necessary to speed it up. this is one where us telling the story, has been an amazing

national partner, and share our strength has been a silent partner. >> talk about being on the ground and how one goe about building awareness. >> awareness is central, and we try to tackle that problem in a lot of different ways. adding a data-driven approach to be able to point to the result of today's surveys so we are not relying on anecdotal accounts, this helps -- and when i speak to people in maryland, we always open with the data picture. we say, do you know 622% of american -- of maryland teachers see under in their classrooms prove we urge people to remember one fact and repeat it with

their conversations. i would tell everyone to visit the web site, to take the pledge, and you will be in further communication with a network of flux, and we share information about the impact of hunger in our community. we are engaged in maryland with using the powerful voices. i mentioned our partners earlier, to be communicating. every level to talk about the need and we have a solution. we think we have the answer. we can do a better job to increase participation in these programs and surround kids with food where they live and where they play. >> one other thing and would like at, we have seen many places to run the country where there is almost a stigma to eat in the cafeteria.

particularly, protest. i have had moms that would tell me i thought that was only for the free child. i did not know everybody could eat breakfast. we have seen it issues where schools have open campuses, but when it is the cool thing to go off campus to eat, if i am a free kick, particularly in high schools, i would rather be hungry than be seen in the school cafeteria, where there is good, healthy food. we have got to work to make it so that the cafeteria is the cool place to be. can get support from organizations, leaders, the president of our classes, help talking it up and let people know this is 4 everett 80, it is a healthy place, and we're all eating and learning together. >> one more question.

>> how can students get involved in the program? >> students can be involved in talking to their peers. we did a student survey, and we were concerned students did not know that breakfast was important. we ask them questions, and if there had been a survey response that was like "duh," that is what they would have said. they know the benefits. we make it hard for them, they can choose between hanging out with their friends and getting breakfast, between getting on time and getting breakfast. we have to make this easier, and i note there is a student activist student activism

component of share our strength that we have launched, and it is designed to have every student become aware of this issue. we will make information about the website and those activities available to everyone here at northwestern and other students around the state. >> you can find that information at the nokidhungry website. you can also get the full kid teachers report. it is there and waiting for you. a big round of thank yous to our student questionnaires. a big round of thank yous to our panelists. they give. a big round of thank you to

principal batenga and the students at staff here at northwestern. i would like to close, with the message we got as kids, listen to your teacher. we need to listen to the teachers of this country. hunger is a problem. it is getting worse. but as the secretary said, this is something we can solve. this is very, very small bowl. we have the kinds of programs, the leadership of the boards of education, from organizations like share our strength, and to gather this is absolutely a solvable problem. there can in fact be no kid hungry in america. thank you. thank you very much. >> mitt romney and paul ryan

attended a campaign rally in michigan. it was their first stop as they made their way to columbus ohio tomorrow before arriving in florida for the convention next year. here is a look. >> i love being home in this place where we were raised, where we were born. no one has ever asked to see my birth certificate. they know this is the place where we were born and raised. >> a quick reminder you can see this rally later tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. countdown to the conventions continues start monday.

-- starting monday. featured speakers include ann romney, chris christie, paul ryan, and mitt romney. use the online convention hub watch video feeds, share clips, share your comments. yesterday elizabeth murdock addressed tv execs at the annual and baroque international television festival in scotland. she is the daughter of rupert

murdoch. the shine group is based in london. this is an hour, 15 minutes. >> hello. thank you. the executive chair of the festival, and welcome. this is the third 1/7 edinburg international television festival. i do not know if it is because of this adjustment in testosterone levels or the adjustment we have made to the timetable. this gives us a decent bank holiday. whichever day, i am glad to say

we have a record number of delegates to the festival this year. included, i would like to welcome this year's festival trainees. the television festival is a charity. we have the network scheme -- for those people with no previous experience, and we have the ones to watch, those people who are already working in television. welcome, all of you. we kick off the festival to date with a welcome -- with a version of [unintelligible] we are waiting for someone from compliance to stand up and call the whole thing off. it turns out we did not have anyone from compliance.

if anyone wants to catch me later, i can give you some of the lines that were thought about that needed to be cut from the script. you are a really good sport. tomorrow wrote the day kicks off with the mactaggart question and answer session. we also have a prurient class tomorrow. we have a top, and we have -- we have they talked -- we have a talk. on channel 4, the conditioning session tomorrow. if you want to register for that, the details are in your

program. looking further ahead, saturday, we have an interesting session on the bbc olympics. those are the highlights of a packed program. thank you for everyone who served on this year's committee. big thanks to our festival director and her hard-working team in the festival office. we could not do it without you. [applause] one of my tasks is to appoint the advisory share. last year i asked a person. when i asked him, was a commissioner of the bbc. now one year later he is

director general of the bbc. i like to think that is the effect.h no pressure. here he is to introduce -- [unintelligible] >> thank you. so far it has been a total pleasure. i have no ambitions to be the director general. this is my 23rd consecutive year, and one of the things i have learned it is a festival and not a conference. the next couple days should be a celebration of our industry, a moment to remind ourselves how lucky we are to do what we do.

also the options to listen and learn from creative minds. it is a great lineup this year. i'm grateful to everybody who has made the effort to come here. [unintelligible] to see what challenges lie ahead, and the mactaggart lecture sets the tone for that debate. i want to talk about creative leadership, that balancing act of managing our to and commerce. i decided after 17 years of men in suits dominating this podium, we need a woman this year. four speakers in the history of this event is disgraceful. i also decided this because my wife told me to. or else. in january, i plucked up the

courage to ask elisabeth murdoch to give a lecture. the last 10 years, elizabeth as she -- elizabeth has grown shine into a global business. became a krupick subsidiary of news corp. last year. before you meet her, i will take a minute to talk about the person behind those achievements. she has spent the last 10 years as an independent producer. she epitomizes it takes.

she is competitive. she worked harder than anyone else on around her, and she hates losing. lis is smart, and she is also funny, why is, and compassionate, and she wears her heart on her sleeve. she passes the test of the great leader. she would never ask you to do something that she would not be prepared to do herself. an example -- i helped her start shine from an office in 2001. one night around midnight, my phone rang, and i knew sales appears bill -- salespeople would not call at this year. it was lis.

i jumped in the car and sped to the office in my pajamas, and with a cricket bat and my hands. i was met by lis in her pajamas. we approached the dark building. a long silence. the door open. lis put her hand into my back and firmly pushed me into the office. [laughter] she whispered, you will be fine. at the time, i remember thinking many things, most of them unsuitable for sharing with this audience. on reflection that sums up the woman you are about to meet. she is brave and bold and knows no fear, and she has always got your back. so, for what i know will be a

classic mactaggart, welcome the one and only elisabeth murdoch. [applause] >> good evening. being asked to give the james mactaggart memorial lecture is a double-edged sword. it is a huge honor to be asked, and i think the committee for considering me were the of at dressing our great industry. it is also a massive pain in the ass. [laughter] from the minute of acceptance, yet agonize on how to provide inside.

you wonder how you can make a positive difference and have enough to say to be entertaining without unnecessarily upsetting a large number of the industry. obviously, you also worry about what to wear, maybe that is only me. if you had actually invited any other woman over the last 17 years, i am guessing she would have thought about that, too. you did not. it is amazing. just how much did she upset the committee? [laughter] did you not even think about others? maybe even the lake and fabulous

-- maybe even the elite and fabulous andrea? really, however, writing the mactaggart has been quite a welcome distraction from some of the other nightmares much closer to home. yes, you have met some of my family before. [laughter] [applause] the committee may be less than keen on women, but by god, you do love a murdoch. hopefully, i can do your invitation justice on my own. at the very least, put to rest your fear of women. course, i would like to do much more than that. maybe it is easier for me to say this as an outsider, but the

reason i built my company here in the u.k. is not just because it is a glorious quest it is glorious weather, but this country has a unique and prices television ecology that has been built on a sense of purpose and aspiration. i do not believe we always valued that as we should. i am optimistic and ambitious about the future, but i think we -- and our industry too often is a need there. i fear we sent -- spend far too much time fighting over crumbs when we should be making a bigger cake. for the avoidance of doubt, i am not on to suggest tonight that the way to success is through some quick-fix policy initiative or that i have any more answers than anyone else. that said, policies such as the

terms of trade and our unique mixed funding mechanisms are essentials elements of our unrivaled creative ecosystem. what i am going to put this on is what i see as the more fundamental ingredient to our collective success, our sense of purpose, which is a our motivation as creative people. we are here to tell great stories. to inspire our audience, and to build a sense of community. of course, i have been acutely aware of how those words and values can slip through our fingers. it is hard to give them substance or meaning. particularly in front of an esteemed audience this. but then, the olympics happened,

and suddenly, it has become obvious to all of us when a powerful force, aspiration, and community can be. easy to understand how motivation makes all the difference between failure and success. we have seen the proof that collaboration and competition can coexist, and that we can be an extremely diverse community, united in purpose, capable of inspiring a generation. in the same way that team gh and from the volunteers and our athletes, have changed how we feel as a nation, i suggest we can and must change the way we see ourselves as an industry over the next few years. if we embrace the mindset of the

olympians, their determination to contribute, their courage to learn and improve, and their self-awareness to put in a hard work required to minimize that chance of failure, we too can be world champions in this digital age. i am here for one reason -- i love television. always have, always will. television has been my friend, my comfort, and by a window to the world. it has been the source of so many ideas, emotions, and experiences, all of which have shaped who i am and helped form my beliefs. as a young girl, in new york, as a british emigrant, age 5, i was assessed by everything american. i would rush home from school to

watch reruns. at weekends, it was "little house on the prairie," and even others. that is how groovy i was. as i got slightly older, i was glued to other programs. i was completely transfixed. i had never met characters like vinny barbarino. i was unaware that all in the family was the attack did format was"so that do us part." the education that i received from that as the television was, for a young girl, conscious of

being a cultural outsider, enormously significant. television became both the common bond of my family and with the world at large. much like we all did a few weeks ago, i watched the 1976 summer politics. i was absolutely convinced that i could one day be nadia comeneci. the lessons at home kings through television -- the lessons at home came through television. i could go on. was obsessed with klinger's cross dressing. i witnessed the launch of mtv and could not stop watching it. it was the most exciting thing i had ever seen, lunching with

those great words, "ladies and gentlemen, rock and roll." then came the launch of cnn. i watched the berlin wall come down live in 1989. i watched one of my heroes stet on to the balcony in prague asked by millions blow to become their first president. i watched mandela's long walk to freedom. i watched the audacity and courage of the tank man in tiananmen square. it was shaking me and my generation as we gorged on it. i needed to be a part of it. the earliest encounters

television shaped my global consciousness, and that made me think the people who made television must be both optimistic and aspiration. i am firmly with dennis potter when he said the job of television is to make hearts pound. no wonder then that with my somewhat romantic tendencies and possibly a slight genetic disposition to aim high, i was determined to jump in and start making television that changed the world. reality , of course, is not quite as grand. my very first attempt at producing was a weekly slot at the poughkeepsie access local cable channel. to keep costs down persuaded my

brother to designed the logo for free. i left school and started an internship at channel 9 in australia. this is the beginning of what i know was a very privileged professional education and one that i am extremely grateful for. my life has been blessed with opportunities, and i hope i have always tried to make the most of them, taking the rough with this news. there have been plenty of both. i arrived in australia in 1990, 22, burning bright with dreams of television that would light up the world. australian television in those days was a bit like the world of madmen. there was a bar in the boardroom, salesmen drank martinis at lunch, and there was not a single woman in senior management.

that last part has not changed much yet. i started scheduling promos, where i learned the value of 30 brilliantly produced seconds and how relevant and thrilling popular broadcasting can be. i returned to the u.s. to work at the fox-owned group which was the backbone upon which the network was being built. but i was desperate for local tv experience. when an opening for program director came up, i moved to the fox station in salt lake city, utah. there i was one of two non- mormons in the building, and in a city where women seemed to marry at 17, but i did my best to make air station relevant to a community that regard our upstart network as downright

immoral. after a few formative years, i was ready to move again. by then, fox had secured the network and was turning its attention to the cable market which had dominated for over a decade. i joined as a junior member of the programming team on the new fx channel and try to convince cable operators -- and every one of them wore a cowboy hat -- they should pay 25 cents per subscriber for a channel that was all about live daytime television, broadcast from cosmopolitan manhattan. not a particularly easy sell to real cowboys. as part of as part of a startup, i

experienced the thrill of how a team to work together to create something from nothing, and it also taught me that i could be braver than i felt, and perhaps that taught me to go out on my own. i quit my job, and at 26 with a father that was largely skeptical, but support of, and bob two affiliate's in northern california -- i bought two affiliate's in northern california, which brought challenges, the most memorable of which was riding in a local rodeo in return for a car dealership sponsorship i was trying for "annie get your guns ," but i was more for "calamity jane." what i figured out with

employees with at least 20 more years of experience that i is that leadership is earned, and not bestowed. the only way to survive is to learn fast. do not be afraid to ask questions, and create an environment and culture that was better than the one that i inherited. if nothing else, we did three smart things as station owners. we fought hard to attract and retain great talent, invested in programming, while management costs, and nearly doubled the value of the business. that is pretty much how i landed here. that is how i had the pleasure of meeting some many are moved to the u.k., and went back to being a founder's daughter and into familiar australian culture at sky and in case you were

wondering, there was a bar in the board room anyway, my first job was pretty tough. hi was put in charge of the satellite installation team and the call center in livingston, not so far from here. let alone understand the technical aspects of the installation and customer call centers, i have to live in that now that i could barely understand a single word of what anyone said on my side ask them to slow down. -- , asked them to slow down, but i could not understand or a better understanding of the difference between pay-td, and free-to-air customers. we had customers, not dealers. we spoke to them, listened.

on top of that, the audacity of installing millions of satellite dishes on the side of people's houses was simply dense packing. the move to digital demanded massive collaboration across every division of the company. even when i moved to buy more natural home of programming, we all have to work more closely with the engineers on the construct and design logic of pay-per-view channels. if i have not caught it before, negotiating with hollywood students -- studios, told me that rights are the fundamental building blocks of all global media companies. but, the most and ported thing that i've learned over the course of my men in important thing that i've learned over the course of my many -- important thing that i've learned over the course of my many varied jobs was that the true path was

through human connection. this was my purpose. i knew the closer that i was to the audience, the happier that i felt. against the advice against move -- of those close to me, and to the amusement of many in our industry, i set off from sky and fought for an executive package where i embraced an unknown world, where my learning curve was like a brick wall. it smacked me in the face every morning. it would be fair to surmise that starting shine in 2001 was not just a rational business decision, it could be classified as willful madness, but that the route, it was an act of faith. i set out to build shine

because i believe television has the power to enlighten and enrich people's lives, the matter where and who they are. i was hugely inspired great british producers in the late- 1990's and the early part of this century pop idols were walking with dinosaurs, spruce, and "the office." i wanted to create a place that would allow great people to tell great stories. although china is a global company, we subscribe -- shine is a global company, we subscribe to a simple belief that we could do more together than separately. we live to connect with the audience. it is what gets us up in the morning. we are a company that could only survive on its creative excellence, but i cannot mandate creativity. all of us in this room know that

throwing money at a mediocre idea does not turn it into a hit show. creative excellence depends on talent and expertise, of course, but also on motivation. his motivation, which is traditionally the most -- it is motivation which is traditionally the most difficult for big content companies to get their heads around, but i believe it is the most essential ingredient for any successful creative organization to get right. a hundred for excellence and a passion to resonate with our office -- a hunger for excellence and a passion to resonate with our office -- audience is more powerful than money or fare. a great organization is a place of honesty, integrity, and an environment where curiosity and enthusiasm are the norm. it is a place that demand personal accountability,

collective responsibility, and true self-determination. it is a place where opportunity does not have to wait for a board meeting. it is a place that stimulates self expression and encourages collaborative in denver. what i discovered building a shine across different nations and he genre's is that we share this, and believe in our purpose, and this assertion of community appeals to the very best talent around the world. so, now, in 2012, we are a business that strives to nurture creative people, strides to be a place of creative evidence -- ethics that is sustainable, with a culture that allows everyone to realize their true potential or go down in flames trying. we remind ourselves daily to

never take this for granted. when i look back over our journey so far, from a very small office to the global company that we are today, there are two particular thoughts that i would like to share. the first is how we chose to respond to the ever-increasing importance of scale. that is something with which many u.k. independence fell. u.k. idies are a highly efficient and scalable business model. the global market gave us almost uniquely in the world an opportunity to capitalize on intellectual property and do the one thing this island has proven time and time again, that it is

brilliantly able to build sustainable financial health through export. the terms of trade allowed us to attract the capital to expand our businesses and provides proof that rights owners without guaranteed advertising or licensee funding are better at exporting rights than broadcasters. one of the things that even the greatest of indies must grapple with is how to protect our freedom while avoiding short- term profit oriented investors and the constant need to refinance or sell equity to grow. i remember a particular presentation to a well respected vc. after my long, hard felt explanation, the two key

decision makers actually high- fived over the fact that they did not even watch television. i died a small death that day, and i resolved never to be beholden to financiers with whom we were not aligned. the issue is how to achieve scale and still maintain as much financial independence as you can. scale is not only becoming the norm, but it is an absolute necessity in an increasingly competitive global market. greg was the pioneer. he was one of the first to appreciate the benefits of a plurality of creative supplies when at pearson he bought grundy, and then all american. scale is also essential to scale -- spread your risk. but many of our peers, faced

with constant and distracting financing hurdles, i decided to follow the well-established mantra shine and went out to find like-minded people with whom we could achieve more than we could alone. after various considerations, it became clear to me that news corp. was the best strategic home for us. now, i can almost hear you thinking, no, shit, sherlock. [laughte>> in many ways, it wasy last place that i wanted to go. i really had not spent 12 years and my own to do what was expected of me, but there was and still is irresistible logic to it. news his first and foremost, a content company.

it believes in taking long-term investment into creative risk. it build a fourth u.s. network. it believes in the sense of -- in "the simpsons." it believed in "glee"and backed james cameron not once, but twice. in addition, news corp. when shine to develop an alternative world view. that is what is right about it. obviously, news is also a company that is asking itself very significant and difficult questions about how some behaviors fell so far short of its values. personally, i believe one of the biggest lessons of the past year

has been the need for any organization to discuss a firm and institutionalize a rigorous set of values based on an explicit statement of purpose. the second question facing pay producers is the importance of independence. what we mean by independents, when consolidation looks inevitable -- given our acquisition, you might wonder how i have the right to maintain allegiance to the u.k. independent sector at all. to some extent, independence is about behaviors', and those lines in the eyes of the beholder. shine, we maintain our own distribution model, to be an

alternative, rather than an adjunct. i saw our ability to control our own rights as essential to maintain our global production priorities. our broadcast a relationship here in the u.k., france, denmark, or anywhere, for that matter, can not be dictated by anyone other than oscar -- anyone other than us. the promise between producers and local broadcasters is to put our audience first. it also provides a unique point of difference from the network and cable duopoly in the u.s.. this year alone has witnessed a growing demand for shorter-run series for both emerging your habits, and to satisfy a desire for a-list talent to cannot or will not do the traditional 22 episodes of television a year.

this is now an open concept with domestic syndication and foreign cell that require such volume. our strategic independence from a legacy studio system, combined with significant financial muscle to invest in our talent and programs allows shine to follow creative instincts with security and provide new commercial models that challenge the structural design of hollywood. do not underestimate the significance of this. it is a point of huge potential competitive and vantage, not just for us, but for any -- advantage, not just for us, but for any u.k. production company. i would argue that in practice, independence is the best judge not with quotas and percentages, but by your ability to be paid

consistent -- to behaved consistently with your own business practices. speaking of independence, my brother james spoke about it in his james mactaggart, three years ago, a long time ago in our industry, a love you in this room might recall it. james -- a long time ago, some of you in this room might recall it. james was participating brightly in the historic and real debate about the independence of the bbc, which has exercised a long history of people on this platform, from the very first james mactaggart delivered in 1976, scores have taken positions on charter renewals, ways to prevent contamination of the bbc by government influence and how to ensure accountability.

few have questioned the legitimacy of the mandatory levy. however, despite a valuable contribution to this debate, james and his lecture with a line in which he claimed the only reliable and perpetual guarantor of independence is profit. he clearly intended that statement to be provocative, and it is. i also think that it deserves further analysis. james was right but if you remove profit, independent -- that if you removed profit, independence is not simply challenged, but i think that he left something out. the reason his statement sat so uncomfortably is because profit without purpose is a recipe for

disaster. as an industry, and, indeed, the global society i would say, we could become trapped in our own rhetoric. we need to know how to be comfortable with articulating purpose and reject the idea that money is the only effective measure of all things, or the free market is the only sorting mechanism. the idea that the market will keep us honest is actually the opposite of self-determination and personal accountability. do we have such faith in the imperatives of the market that we need to have no will of our own rather than to succeed on its own -- on its terms? it is us, human beings, we, the people, who create a society we want, not profits. it is increasingly apparent that the absence of purpose, or the

moral language within government, media or business could become one of the most dangerous own-goals for capitalism and freedom. independence might be characterized by the absence of the apparatus of supervision and dependency, as james said, but independence from regulation and the freedom that we need to innovate and grow is only democratically viable when we accept that we have a responsibility to each other and not just our bottom line. profit must be our servant, not our master. over the past year of scrutiny into our media standards, and the sometimes self-serving relationships between the great institutional pillars of our society, be they police,

politics, media, or banking, we would all do well to remember ball tears -- voltare's cautioned that with great power comes great responsibility. it is not romantic. without a common statement of purpose there is no credible answer to the occupy wall street movement. the with the levenson inquiry recommends, but when -- let see what the weapons and inquiries recommends, the one that has been a dearth of integrity across the many institutions it is very difficult to argue for the right outcome, which must be the fears protection of a free press and light-touch media regulation. sadly, the greatest threat to our free society are too often from enemies within.

commercial purpose and public purposes are not, by definition, incompatible. in fact, i would argue that they can be and must be the same thing, and when our institutions feel bereft of meaning or seem to have lost sight of their humanity, that is when we, the storytellers, who love and make television should be motivated and inspired to create shared human experiences, experiences of love, hope, fear, the joy, and, perhaps, most importantly, of redemption. we have the ability and the skills to remind people that we all belong. as mandela said, we are the

people that we have been waiting for. but, to take on this message, the mission, we have to be fit for our purpose, -- this mission, we have to be fit for our purpose, and that means taking a plurality of voices, and a rich input across generations, social and economic perspectives, and across technologies, not just international and television boundaries. we have learned a lot at shine, from the young talent in our social enterprise start called the hatch. 12 of the team are here today, all under 25, and brimming with their generations and to the expertise in communications, technology and digital self expression.

this generation is still under- represented in the television business. so, they are finding their voices, their talent, and their audience along other pads of less resistance. theirs is the diy generation, turning disillusionment in to self determination. rather than waiting for political campaigns, they create a spontaneous political activism. waiting -- rather than wait for a job in television, they go direct to screen. i believe they are creating a new kind of politics and a new kind of media in which traditional institutions could easily become impotent. if we are going to remain relevant, we must create real opportunities for them, not because of what we could teach them, but to find out what they

could teach us. last year, eric schmidt talked about the accidental pace of technology and he argues that we -- x potential pace of technology and he argues that we ignore the internet at our peril. i would add that we ignore expedition of digital natives at our peril they are being created rapidly outside of our very linear old world. while who, netflix, loved the film, -- hulu, netflix, lovef ilm, art distribution, what is more explosive is the [unintelligible]

but first, new networks are being built on platforms like youtube. big frame is a net book that stunts schedule, cross-promote, cross-sells, and commissions content. they're now commanding audiences of up to 120 million subscribers to their hundreds of channels. these are not just channel brands like mtv and nickelodeon, but networks like viacom. the second is that youtube is beginning to behave like a market leader. believe that your own risk of their platform is made on homemade videos of washing machines or a do. gh -- dog.

this showcase is people like ray william johnson, who makes a million dollars from his comedy channel, and a platform for preparing series from big names like brian singer. you told is providing hundreds of millions of dollars in finance -- youtube is providing hundreds of millions of dollars in financial assistance to partners and using that to create and promote content. my third observation is that brands and talent are using youtube to create direct-to- consumer relationships. the most popular makeup expert in the world has over 600 million views, equivalent to a global olympic audience generated by a 22-year-old putting on lady gaga night.

she asked if people want to subscribe for $10 a month to her home delivery service, and 36,000 of them did in the first 24 hours. she is now turning over something like $2 million a year, and she is now working on a distribution platform that could eclipse any single retail relationship. digital platforms can translate audience trust into transactional relationships incredibly efficient way, and without a middleman, agents, media buyers, or program maker'' reliance on broadcast-based business models, but youtube is not reinventing the wheel. remember that in their first decade, mtv had very little money for original production, but they, like today's youtube

stars had an authentic voice, kept costs lows, and tear raided other people compel short -- here raided other people's short videos. they created a committee that cannot be. for in the mainstream media in a back and not be ca -- that could not be. for in the mainstream media. youtube is doing the same thing. let's not be like the broadcast network in the united states, and come late again to the party other people are having with our audience. like all stream media or free mantle, we must be all creating direct-to-customer channels, using the platforms, developing the netflix, gaining the experience and learning the skills of audience development.

the desire to tell great stories, the impulse to commune with humanity, it is not only the inspiration at the heart of our industry, but it is the most reliable key to our future. if connecting to an audience is our motivation, and the lines with which we see ourselves, -- lends with which we see ourselves, it determines how we sustain a culture of creative excellence and also how we respond to changing technologies and business models. let us not forget that we are compelled to connect with the audience through moving pictures and sound. what not begin to and by we once defined as a television screen. just a imagine if the record labels have remembered that their business was to connect people to music, not simply to sell themperhaps there industryt have splintered in the way that

it has. i believe that the biggest lesson for us to take on board is this. in the same way that we have between purpose and profit, we have seen to got the emphasis wrong. the imperative to build community has massive implication to how we approach the television business. we know that the traditional advertising model is ultimately not sustainable. a model that by definition requires an audience to be seen as a means to an end is not viable. broadcasters must figure out how to have a real one to one relationship with each and every one of their viewers.

if they don't, they are destined to become increasingly marginalized in dependent on the occasional national events. it is not enough to be seeking data to enhance details. it is about the deepening the relationship with the audience to reach meaningful interactions, a true experience. the real world demands that we create services that are sufficiently value to allow more interactive and transactional relationships with the viewer. we need to do it soon. slapping a hashtag in the corner of the screen does not begin to build community. there is more. platforms like youtube are not limiting their innovation to concept. their latest project is a cost

per view or engagement model that is radically different than the tv industry's impressionist based approach. the advertiser only gets charged a premium when it is watched to completion. the audience getting the chance to skip after five seconds. the uptake is astonishing and the audience is empowered. it does what it says, how the true view. amazon, netflix, pinterest, tumblr with their ubiquitous and intelligence services are coming after our audience relationships. there is no reason for us to be afraid. not if we learn and learn quickly. unlike the decade that it took many of us to adapt to the reality of multi-channel

television, we don't have that much time. we need to adapt as fast as the audience. look at how people responded to the bbc coverage of the olympics. and please, let us keep in mind that the ipad is barely 27 months old. here is another paradox that threatens to limit our ability to respond to this world of deep engagement with the audience. we often mistake the possibility for collaboration with the threat of competition. and if we don't have the confidence to collaborate between producers and broadcasters, advertisers and second screen services, we are in danger of losing the battle at just the time when we could be winning.

if we are having a debate about product placement, taking intractable positions over distribution windows or keeping in place remedial policies like crr, we are completely missing the point and obstructing our own recipes for success. at the moment, the bbc seems to be the furthest ahead at the understanding that our new world demands new ecosystems. under the leadership of mark thompson, the bbc has been the market leader for building new relationships and services created from every sector. be it the early groundbreaking backstage initiative for technology engineers to the experimental digital service called space, to project a

parcel of. there is the -- project barcelona. the stuff that connects the bbc to their audiences a good idea. this might seem easier and more obvious. it is the purposeful mentality that we must all embrace. when the world rewards open participation and punishes isolationism. channel 4 has begun to show how part of this open mind set, such as the ability for people to embedded video from embarrassing bodies for non-commercial use on their own web site. i am still not so sure. channel 4 has experimented with

leases. and abraham has pursued the second screen strategy. i am not qualified to discuss the efficacy of the data gathered thus far. i believe it low only read true rewards when the data is for the benefit of producers and the audience, not just for advertisers. there are very few initiatives of significance being conducted in partnership between producers and broadcasters. it is astounding how little social media functionality or commerce partnerships featured on any of the players or websites. q my mind, this is exactly the real estate where producers and broadcasters and the audience have so much room for collaborative and mutually beneficial --

ours is a business of mutuality. reliant on the health of each other. commercial broadcasters have to keep the ad market going. the bbc needs itv and sky to maintain a position of equality rather than dominant. all generals need a vibrant and competitive production sector to ensure that they gain the benefit of a strong, creative community. one able to make long-term investments and ideas. and one holland by diverse experiences and the need to constantly improved. we need a diverse uk channel market. while they have not increased their original over the past two

years, thankfully sky and operators are contributing hundreds of millions of pounds, creating a renaissance for british oscar did series. let me put it on the record that i am a current supporter of the bbc universal license fee. it is because the sea is universal that the bbc has a unique purpose. and it continues act as a strategic to the creative industry of this great country. i do imagine the biggest challenge may be too demonstrate how efficiently the funding is being spent on actual content on behalf of the licensing pairs. the tribes of our industry could build so much more to gather.

commercial broadcasters should be connecting producers with advertisers for collaborative sponsorship home placement initiatives. take a lesson from retail and a share audience data within their producers so that we can respond and improve our product. which should be moving to a world where the terms of trade are a basic right for producers of all original uk ip's. regardless of their indie status or if the buyer is a psb. we must encourage enough creative collaborations of that we may deviate from these terms if it is mutually beneficial to do so. the greatest international relationships are those that we have become true domestic partners with our broadcasters on and off the television

screen. the audience and the mutuality of our success. moving from closed to open. control to trust. or even fear to confidence. it's hard. not least because we fear, but we might be letting the genie of technology out of the bottle and destroying our established certainties' and business models. but this is a challenge that we must face as an industry and take comfort in its not being unique to our generation. in brave new world. huxley -- in "brave new world," huxley says we would have no time for culture.

none of these examples should suggest that connectivity alone as a substitute for culture. we should not be fooled into thinking that the utility based services like facebook or twitter negates the need for public spaces, but are part of a foundation for a truly democratic society. and people watching the technology, as we have just seen with the olympics, it is television that has the unique ability to tell the most powerful stories and provide us with the emotional experience that we all crave. it wasn't twitter that made us cry with chris hoy, jessica ennis -- it was the power of television. believing in technology without acknowledging the need for real

community and the need for great storytelling, which is dangerous and trusting as a single parent her -- guarantour outcomes.ive a speaker said freeing of broadcasting in this country is part of a democratic revolution and an essential step forward into the information age with its golden promise. freeing it from the dominance of one narrow set of cultural values. freeing it from private or public enterprise that thinks it has something that people might like to watch. freeing if from the bureaucrats of television and placing it in the hands of those who should

control it. the people. the speaker was my father. a quarter of a century later, i am still inspired by those words. and they are still deeply relevant today. my dad had the vision, the will, and the sense of purpose to challenge the old world order on behalf of the people. he literally bet our house on it. my parents spoke vividly over the breakfast table about what this meant. we could be obliged to be permanent outsiders at constant nomads. back then, i understood we pursued a greater good.

belief in better. a generation on, it's time for us all to revisit that purpose to be in the service of the people and find the strength of character. we must believe in better for the communities, the industry, and ourselves. the golden promise of the information age has never been closer to becoming a reality. our opportunity and our responsibility is to deliver that promise. and there is plenty of talent in this room to do just that. in addition to improve the world doesn't turn a business into a social agency, it makes business great. the late steve jobs said, being the richest man in the cemetery

doesn't matter to me. going to bed at night saying that we have done something wonderful, that is what matters to me. if we are even to contemplate that we have left an indelible mark on time, that we have left behind a legacy like a great cathedral builders of the past. we have to aspire to be something special. change, and to grow. that is the way that we will live on and others. we have to acknowledge and dedicate ourselves to our purpose. to tell great stories. at to inspire our audience, to contribute to a sense of community. if we follow this course, we will find that we, too, are laying the foundation of a new

cathedral. this one combining the keystones of the steve jobs and lord reese. for 16 overwhelming days, feasting on the bbc's exuberance and unrivaled olympic coverage, we saw this country assert our community, our excellence, our diversity, our courage, and our determination. our olympians have inspired a generation and so should we be inspired by our forefathers. we can be a new britain, born out of the best of the old britain. the wonderful playwright allen bennett tells of a young man that would go the symphony concert and ride home on the train with many of the musicians that would, "sit there, rather

shabby and ordinary. worlds away from what they had been playing." he said it was a first lesson to me that ordinary middle-aged men in raincoat's can be instruments of the sublime. it's not for me to describe the u.k. television industry as middle-aged men in raincoats. janet said 17 years ago, but i will call on us to remember is not only our privilege to be an instrument of the sublime. it is our responsibility. thank you for inviting me here tonight. it has been an honor and a pleasure. i very much hope that the

committee asks another woman to deliver this lecture next year. murdoch you'reother after, my sisters may need some time. thank you and good night. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> of the countdown to the conventions continues. every minute, every speech, live on c-span, c-span radio, and c- span.org. ann romney, chris christie tuesday. paul ryan delivers his nominee acceptance speech on wednesday. atch web -- watch web exclusive

video feeds. all at c- span.org/campaign2012. >>tonight, a discussion on u.s.- canada relations including border security and environmental issues. we will get remarks from the canadian ambassador to the u.s., and members of both countries navy and coast guard. and right after that, the former head of the british intelligence service delivers a speech on radical figures and how they are works of fiction. stella rimington was the first whose identity was made to the public. and now from the c-span video library, paul riot on medicare, social security, and the budget.

he has appeared on c-span over 400 times since he made his debut in 1995 when he was a congressional staffer. guests include the hot to zack and greg gilbert. this is 40 minutes. >> as you know, the obligated debt, i have heard $49 trillion. cbo estimates by 2020 the budget will essentially be interest on the debt, social security, medicare, medicaid. the reason we have these huge debts is because no party is able to on their own address these problems. the other party would attack them for it. what mechanism is going to have to be put into play to try to address the long term a budget issues? >> i think you are right. if republicans go out and try

to fix social security, democrats demagogue them. vice versa. we should not be afraid of that. get a dialogue going in this country so we can figure out how to fix these problems. one of the things we ought to do is change the way our federal budget process works. in the last segment, you were talking about accounting. john and i agree on a lot of things. this federal budget process does not reward tackling these big issues. the to make this more enforceable, more transparent,

and more accountable. there are accounting changes we can do to bring on the books these liabilities. the way we do the accounting, if you are in american corp., you would be in jail. we do not fully recognize the liabilities we have to the taxpayers. it would make it easier for us to tackle these goals. we need to have budget enforcement. that is why i am a fan of spending caps. if congress expands the spending caps -- there is a lot more we can do to fix this. we need to fix this process.

>> one of more than 400 -- his first appearance on c-span back in 1995. we have gone back through the archives to take a look at some of the major issues in this campaign. medicare, social security, and the overall budget. has there been a consistency in his statement over the years? >> paul ryan has been very consistent. he has taken criticism for that. the only inconsistency democrats would point out is that he voted against the stimulus plan. but then sought money from that program for businesses in his district. >> he is a key committee chair. >> he has been in congress for

seven terms. he has been a budget committee chairman comment he has been any the in these big issues on medicare. he was a former staffer for the senator brown back. he knows these issues. he is only 42. he can talk at length about some of these issues. >> we will learn more about the paul ryan budget. summarize what is in the budget package and why this has become such a big part of the republican campaign. >> the big piece of it is medicare reform. he wants to make it more privatization, a private companies are competing with traditional medicare. the budget plan also has caps on social service programs. on the medicare plan, he took a lot of heat in 2011 for that medicare reform. he went to a democrat from oregon, and change the plan, it so that the traditional medicare would not be taken out of the option that seniors would

have. that is what you were going to hear paul ryan talk a lot about. he has worked with john spratt on a line item veto. at the same time, he did not support the goals and senate budget reform. member say he was not bipartisan. >> if you look at the budget and made into a pie chart, how much is defense spending? discretionary spending? more than half goes to these medicare, medicaid, social security supplement. >> they say there is no way you

can fix the budget problem because the entitlements is such a large portion. defense is well over a quarter of the budget. there is also not discretionary spending. if you look at the charge the cbo puts out, the bulk of the spending problem is dealing with entitlement programs, specifically in medicare. in the 1990's, medicare was also a problem and congress passed a balanced budget. that helped the situation. >> he was a staffer on capitol hill and he made his first appearance on this network on may 27, 1995, as a legislative aide. he talked about the budget process. >> i would like to go back to the first caller statement read this budget debate, what is this about? this is evolving into a fundamental difference between

the two parties. the republicans, we say we have to budget the -- balance the budget. it is interesting to note that the clinton's administration's budget proposal projects building more deficits. adding on top of the debt. we think we have to balance the budget as soon as possible. during a seven-year budget plan is a credible responsible to balance the budget. it increases spending at a slower rate. when the republicans were in the minority, we also offer the alternative budget plans, which did balance the budget. >> that was paul ryan in 1995. >> it shows should that even at that young age, he knows what he is talking about, he is a budget guru. attacking the sitting president as a staffer.

you do not see that very often. a lot of people know paul ryan knew he was going to send up the ranks of the gop. >> first elected in 1998. thank you for being with us. paul ryan is a policy wonk, a smart politician and highly ideological. hussy of bald or has there been -- has see involved -- has he evolved? >> in terms of his rhetoric and in terms of the thrust of his policy positions, i do not think there has been a whole lot of movement. he has always stressed the same

set of issues. he has always talked in the same rhetorical terms about party thinks the republican party should go and what he thinks of the role and size of the federal government should be. >> what shapes his views? >> he gravitated -- he is an earnest young man who gravitated towards -- as he got into college, he did not come from a super political family. his father was a fan of ronald reagan, but not really political. he gravitated towards a conservative way of looking at the world. by the time he got to college, by most accounts, he brought

some of that with him. after college, when he hooked up the senate republican from wisconsin, who was a strong supply sidejguy and jack kemp and bill bennett, everything crystallized for him in terms of his economic world view and limited government and pro- market orientation. >> he mentioned that paul ryan likes to talk about policy. there is no doubt about that. how have you seen him talking about politics. he does not like to apple length about political issues as much as a policy wonk issues. he has just been picked as vice president. how do you think he is going to handle that?

>> he likes to talk about how disinterested he is in politics and how he is a policy guide. in fact, i think he is a very good politician who does have some political acumen. i have had conversations with him over the years where the conversation will drift over politics. he has opinions about the presidential race. he will offer tactical and strategic opinions. people should not miss the political dimensions. there is paul ryan the policy guy, there is the very ideological conservative. you see reflected in his relationship with the media. he is a good communicator, good

and at ease with reporters. those are some of his political skills that work. >> why the budget? what led him to propel himself to be the chairman of the budget committee? it is a political document as well as a policy document. >> he has a certain economic orientation. he wanted to become an economist, never getting there. when he got to washington, that was his policy interests. he saw the potential to turn the leadership on the budget committee, whether it was ranking member or budget chairmen into this platform comment into this role of influence in terms of -- even though we all know the budget chair is not the person with the power. he made something of this

position, which was unconventional. he made it into a forum for projecting his view of for the republican party should be on government. >> thank you very much for being with us. the day after the president's very first step of the union address in february of 2009, paul ryan was the ranking republican on the house budget committee. he joined us to talk about the budget process. >> we're going to pass the rest of the current fiscal year. last congress did not finish the job. then we call the budget resolution. thursday, the president sent his abbreviated version of the budget. our timeline is to get this done in the first week of april. we get that done, we send instructions on their funding targets they have to hit. that occurs over the course over the spring and summer. by end of the fiscal year, these 11 appropriations bills will be passed into law. thursday starts the ball

rolling. by the beginning of april, congress should have passed the budget resolution. and then we bring all those bills back together and these things ought to be passed by the end of the fiscal year. lately, that has not worked that way. we have gone past the deadlines, past the fiscal year deadlines. today is an example. we are passing an appropriations bill today. 8.8% increase in discretionary spending. these are bills that were supposed to be passed last september 30. we are really increasing spending dramatically and that is going to hurt our ability to reduce our deficit. that is a big concern. >> paul ryan in february 2009. let me ask you about how he is viewed by his colleagues. >> he is respected on both

sides of the aisle. chris van holland and him get along very well. he is respected so much that there has been talk of them making a leadership bid against john boehner. he never did that, but they have to look over their shoulder because there was a respected up and comers who was urged to run, but opted not to do it. >> how will this play out? what are republicans going to be doing? >> we have seen some of it already. what i think we will see down the stretch is social security reform. you go back to 2005, that the

bill did not go anywhere. that bill, the main sponsor was paul ryan. he was taking on a big entitlement program, it was not popular with seniors. on social security and medicare, paul ryan is going to be attacked. mitt romney knew that. the chances of major reform along the lines of what they want are not going to happen. >> thank you for being with us as we talk about congressman paul ryan and many of the evidence we have covered over the years from the "washington journal" to his policy speeches, all part of c-span's a video library. one of those events came in chicago at the economic club in which he talked about medicare. this is paul ryan may 16 of last year on the issue of

medicare. >> our budget also gets health care spending under control by an powering americans to fight back against skyrocketing costs. our budget makes no changes to those in or near retirement. it offers future generations is strengthened medicare program that they can count on would guaranteed coverage options, less help for the wealthy, and more for the poor and sick. there is widespread bipartisan agreement that the open-ended fee-for-service structure of medicare is a key driver of health care cost inflation. ask any hospital executives and it will tell you the same thing. medicare is not the train being pulled along by the engine of rising costs. medicare is the engine and the rest of us are getting taken for a ride. this disagreement is not about the problem.

it is about the solution to controlling costs in medicare. if i could sum up the disagreement in a couple sentences, i would say this. our plan is to give seniors the power to deny business to an efficient providers. [applause] their plan is to give the government the power to deny care to seniors. what our budget does, given that medicare and medicaid -- those two programs alone are the biggest contributors to it. you have to restructure how these programs work. the trustees gave us a new warning last week that medicare is going bankrupt a lot faster than we thought it was. if we did this now, we can do it on our own terms as the country. we do not have to pull the rug under from people look already retired. people who are 10 years away

from retiring are preparing for it. do not change their benefits, but in order to do that, you have to reform this program for the next generation. you have to make a solvent system so that you can cash flow the current generation. the way he did that, we believe, is not by given a panel of 15 bureaucrats the authority to micromanage medic kit -- medicare. we say, let's younger people select among the list of medicare guaranteed coverage options. it works like this system federal employees have. you subsidize insurance. give support to the people that needed the most and less support to the people who needed

the least. it helps solve our debt crisis. can this be done? i hardly think this is some radical idea. this is the same kind of recommendation that president clinton's bipartisan commission recommended in the late 1990's. it worked just like current medicare benefits for today. medicare advantage works like this. by near the supplemental insurance works like this. -- buying supplemental insurance works like this. we believe the best way to get at this issue is by giving the patient the power. a consumer directed system. hospitals, insurers, doctors

compete against each other for our business as consumers. we spend a lot of money on health care, but we do not spend it very intelligently. we need a system, where we have transparency in price, transparency in quality, so we can have apples to apples metrics comparison. i do believe you need to do it -- we subsidize people and the higher income brackets allot more. that is upside down. we want a system where the individual is in the driver's seat, not some bureaucrats. i would argue for subsidizing those with pre-existing conditions of they do not go bankrupt. we bring more competition, more choice to the health-care sector.

if we did this, i think we will be fine. we will grow the economy. we can have insurance for everybody who does not have it and we can do without breaking the bank. [applause] >> as the newly elected chair of the house budget committee, he delivered his remarks and to questions at the chicago economic club focusing on medicare, one of the key issues in this election. we're looking back at the video library. all this is available to you at any time on c-span.org. this is a significant budget issue, social security. >> what i propose is a system of voluntary personal retirement accounts. raise taxes, cut benefits, or in less and borrow more money.

there are two ways to grow the rate of return. have the government invest the money, or have personal retirement accounts for individuals. not we're talking about is privatizing social security. we are not talking but giving people the ability to take a chunk of their payroll taxes and taking it outside the system. people are not buying this choosing stocks and bonds. under that system, people under the age of 55 will be able to take half of their payroll taxes and a personal retirement account.

the rest would go to fund the current system. survivors' benefits, and disability benefits. transition financing is a big debate, how you get from here to there. i will not go into how i propose to do that, but i have a very sophisticated plan. >> people are very interested in this topic. what happens if you are an investor who takes advantage of the option to invest separately and you get a street for the market goes down? >> under my plan, i have a safety net. we should have and maintain the social security safety net. >> no risk plan. >> if you are under 55, you'll get what you would have otherwise gone from social

security. how you guard against -- that is why we proposed a life cycle account. it changes your portfolio as you grow older. when you are younger, you will have a mix of heavy stock index funds, light on bond index funds. you are completely out of the stock market so that you do not fall prey to a down market by the time you retire. another thing that is very important, there is no 20-year time or we did not do better in social security than we're doing right now. social security is a long-term investment. part of the reason why we are saying 55 and under it is said they have time to plan and grow their investment.

at the age of 35, all i have to do is get that 1% rate of return for me to do better than i would other ways -- otherwise do. all we have to do is get a little bit better than that to do better for ourselves. i want to get to people's calls. >> personal retirement accounts help us choose solvency -- achieve solvency. if susan, you take a portion of your payroll taxes. that portion you are diverting over to your personal retirement account, the

government is not going to get that money. the system is off the hook to pay you that part of your benefits for those dollars because you'll get that benefit out of your personal retirement account. the system reduces the expenditures by that amount. that helps bring the system and to solvency. we are about the same age, as you would have to do a little bit better than that to break even. >> the safety net, which would guarantee me, won't that draw? >> as workers grow that fund, the safety nets is completely paid for. we can go into the financing part of all these things, but right now, over the long term, we face a $12 trillion debt on

social security. >> from march 9, 2005, paul ryan talking about social security. some of the key issues in this budget plan. earlier, we heard his comments about medicare. it was last year when he became a chair of the house budget committee. he outlined details of what is now known as the ryan plan. >> look at our historic sites of our government, right around 20% of gdp. here is the path to your on right now. this is the path the president's budget is complicity with. the size of our government is double by the time my kids are

my age. here is the spending path that this prosperity plan presents. we bring the size of government back down to 20% of gdp. we have budget enforcement mechanisms, multiple spending caps. this is how we get $6.20 trillion at spending cuts the first 10 years. let's take a look at deficit. take a look at where we are headed. we had deficits and the past. look at where we are headed with our deficits. this is where the president's budget plan is completed with. this is the path of the status quo. these are the kinds of deficits will be racking up if we do not do something to fix this problem. here is the path we are proposing with respect to our path for prosperity. very different choice of two

different features. let's talk about debt. we have had debt in this country before. people get a mortgage to buy a house. typically, you measure your debt as relative to your income. take a look at our debt. over -- we if that had been before. that was temporary. then went back down. it would down to reasonable levels but look at what the congressional budget office is telling us is our future of debt. this red ink is gone to destroy our economy. we know we are giving the next generation a lower standard of living. we asked the cbo to tell us what the future of the economy looked like. they ran a computer model stimulating the economy forward. the models break in 2037. they cannot conceive of the time in whicthe economy can continue past that moment

because of this burden of debt. this is our debt path. we get this paid off. that is the future we want for our children. we believe we have been more responsibility to put the kinds of controls and reforms in place to keep this country growing. we need job growth. we need economic growth. we ask the heritage center for data analysis to review this budget. they use the global inside model. here is what the results show. this plan result in faster economic growth. $1.50 trillion in additional

economic growth over a decade. 1 million jobs next year to be created under this plan. the unemployment rate goes down to 4% in the year 2015. in the last year of this budget, we're kicking greeted creating 2.5 million new jobs in the private sector in that year alone. it also predicts higher wages. it also predicts higher family income, nearly $1,000 per family per year result from the better economic growth this plan for prosperity presents. this is a plan for prosperity. when you take a look at the choice of the two futures we have, we can either choose the red line, a sea of debt and deficits, or we can choose that green line, or we face up to the challenges confronting this generation now to give our country a better future. we've always had a legacy or

each generation -- where each generation cakes on challenges of the next generation is better off. we are not going to be giving our children a better standard of living. we know we will not make them better off. that is a fact that is not daunted by any independent fiscal expert. we owe it to our country in kids to fix this problem. what of the worst experiences i've ever had was in the 2008 financial crash. that cottas by surprise. -- that caught us by surprise. added that resulted ugly legislation. and then we witnessed trillions of wealth of being lost. then we witnessed millions of seniors lose their savings. and then we witnessed millions of people lose their jobs. we're still trying to recover. what if your congressmen, your

president saw it coming? what if they knew was going to happen? what if they knew what could be done to prevent it from happening? but they decided not to because it was not the politics. what would you think of your president? you're a member of congress? that is where be our right now. this is the most predictable economic crisis in our history. what are we doing, playing politics? we do not need politicians, we need leadership? we believe we have a moral imperative, we got together on the budget committee and we decided it is time to stand up and do what is necessary to fix this country. we to be honest with the american people about the

problems and face. with the fact base budget. no more accounting tricks, no more accounting gimmicks. i will be happy to take your questions. >> [inaudible] >> this shows you how deep of a hole this country is then. -- is in. what matters the most is we get this contained. this shows you the sooner you act to fix this problem, the better everybody is. the kinds of reforms we are proposing did not affect senior citizens.

they did not take benefits away from people who are 55 and above. we can achieve that. what happens of the keep kicking the can down the road, we go about $10 billion into the hole. that means cuts to seniors, tax increases. we want to preempt that kind of austerity. it is gone to take awhile to dig their way out of this problem. [inaudible] >> we do not proposed increasing taxes. if you raise taxes, can you move the numbers are there? you lose jobs, you lose economic growth. we need spending cuts and economic growth. raise taxes on the economy, you do not get the growth.

we are now in the 21st century. we are in a global economic environment. in wisconsin, we're competing with people from india and china. the only tax our businesses and at the highest tax rates, we lose and they win. >> april 5 of last year, congressman paul ryan outlines details of what is now known as the ryan plan. from the "washington journal," his speeches in washington and elsewhere in the country, now on the campaign trail. he made his first appearance in 1995 as a staff member. three years later, he returned as a newly elected member of congress.

this is from november 17, 1998. it is all part of c-span's video library as the track his career in washington and wisconsin. you can check it out anytime at c-span.org/videolibrary. >> mitt romney and paul ryan attended a campaign rally as they made their way to columbus ohio before arriving in tampa for the republican national convention. here is a look. >> i love being home in this place where we were raised, where both of us were born. i was born at harper hospital. no one has ever asked to see my birth certificate, this is the

place we were born and raised. >> a quick reminder that you can see this campaign rally in its entirety later tonight at 8:00 eastern. our countdown to the conventions continues until our gavel-to- gavel coverage of the republican convention starts monday and the democratic convention starting september 4. every minute, every speech, live. featured speakers include ann romney, chris christie, paul ryan delivering his acceptance speech on wednesday. and thursday night, mitt romney. watch web exclusive video feeds, create and share clips. the connect with other viewers.

>> a group of law professors and talked about the concepts of a racial biases and stereotypes and law. hosted by harvard university law school. it is about one hour and 45 minutes. >> welcome back to the implicit racial bias across the law book conference. i will introduce our panel of shares in moderator's. she is one of the few social psychologist who is employed at a law school. she is one of the few. it is victoria plaut. she was the assistant professor of psychology at the university of georgia.

-- she isuc-berkeley. now at uc-berkeley. i like to welcome her and the c- span viewers in the audience as well. >> welcome to our afternoon panel. my introduction will be brief. we are short on time. we have many great presentations. following the presentations, we will have a facilitation. i will introduce each speaker. i will ask two things -- during this facilitation all the panelists should come back up during the discussions. also, if you have a question from the audience, please press the record button -- the pon

button on your microphone. we have professor dorothy brown from emory law school. she will speak on stereotypes and the earned income tax credit. we have professor danielle conway, the michael j marks professor from the university of hawaii. we have susan serrano and breann speaking on bias against native people as sovereign's. susan serrano is the director of educational development in native hawaiian law and and breann swann nu'uhiwa is the chief advocate in the office of hawaiian affairs. deana pollard sacks will follow from thurgood marshall school of law. she will speak on implicit by its -- bias-inspired torts.

our next speaker will speak on patients and neglected and what we can do. this represents a chapter in the book we have come to discuss. it was edited by justin levinson and robert smith. our spinal -- final speaker will relate to the book, "seeing patients, unconscious bias in health care. " i will hand it to dorothy brown. >> thank you. good afternoon. i have a good and bad news.

i am only speaking for 10 minutes. i am talking about tax. i write about race classes and policies. my book chapter is about stereotyping in the current income credit. this idea is interesting. who is -- who has filled out a tax return? who has checked the box on race on their tax return? nobody. there is no box on race on your tax return. if a law maker says, i have no intention to discriminate on the basis of race, you can say, yes that has to be true because we do not think about tax in the frame of race. it is a challenge to me to write about race and tax. the best thing that has happened to me is that we have elected a

black man as president. have the 70's, they disclosed their talks returns. there is a phenomenal amount of information one can find out about race from looking at the obama tax return. i will not talk about that. it is fascinating. the book chapter that i am talking about looks at stereotyping in the earned income tax credit. it is a tax credit for the working poor. if you make -- depending on how many people you -- how many children you have a 2 $50,000. if you have none, it is at about the $12,000 housecoat income. as a household income. it is a working taxpayer credit. it is designed to reimburse you for your federal income tax withheld from your checks as well as the social security taxes withheld. it was created in the mid-

1970s's. president ford signed it in to to encouragejected c-- work and not pay a penalty for working vs not working and get afdc pavements -- payments. in 2009, 27 million working families took advantage of this. in 2010, 6.3 million people were lifted out of poverty as a result of this tax credit. one of the unique features is it is called a refundable credit. if your credit is greater than your federal income tax liability, you get a check from the government. that compensate you for your social security taxes. 2/3 compensate tax payers for

their federal income taxes and social security income taxes. one-third it over and above that amount, which makes the credit operate as a minimum wage at dawn. many agreed that the income tax credit is a good program, lifting people out of poverty, half of which are children. there is a 25% to 30% error rate. 30% of the dollars spent on the earned income tax credit are paid out in error. there is this activity -- mistakes being made. why is that? because the people claiming the credit are cheating. we know these people. they would rather get a check from the government can work. there are people who are trying

to gain the system. . it is a complicated credits and they are making mistakes. what are the data point? the datapoint how well like to cite is a complicated credit. the irs booklet that accompanies the earned income-tax credit is over 50 pages long and has several computations involved. the gao did a study to look at tax return preparers, taxpayers who prepared to do their own calculations and the irs. at every level, significant percentages made mistakes. about 60% of all taxpayers go to

tax return preparers. 72% of eitc taxpayers a tax preparers. but i say it is complicated, it is. how it operates is for every dollar of income you earned, of to a certain amount, you get a percentage of the eitc. your income his the sailing. as your income increases, you get no more credit. you play a flat line. they knew it to another point. as your income increases, your credit declines as a certain percentage for every additional dollar that you earn. until you get to zero. that is complicated. i left out the guts of it.

that is basically it. congress looks at the air raids. the error rate is -- ignores those who are eligible for the earned income tax credit that do not apply for it. that is part of the error rate, also. congress looks at this error rate, and in the mid-1990's, when congress passed the child tax credit, there was a discussion on how this would operate with the earned income tax credit. raising the complexity. many republican members of congress said, we do not want the earned income tax credit taxpayer getting more from the child tax credit because they are getting welfare. working taxpayers were branded with the welfare label.

we know what happens when you are branded with that label. in the mid 1990's, republican congress is battling with president clinton. the deal to save the earned income tax credit was president clinton would allocate $1 billion for audits and crackdowns on the earned income tax credit claims. the presumption is i know who these people are. they are the equivalent of welfare cheats. we need to audit. if we do that we will reduce the error rate. around the same time, the irs was under a lot of heat in congress for how they treated middle-class taxpayers, who were being audited. it was the big, bad irs.

congress passed a bill to cut back the irs' ability to audit taxpayers. into the early 2000's, the only taxpayer is being audited work earned income tax credit to taxpayers. the 25% or 30% error rate needed to be fixed. there is a tax cap. it is the amount of money the virus treasury does not collect because people cheat-- the irs treasury does not collect because people cheat. less than 1% was attributed to the earned income tax credit. if you go with the money is, auditing eitc tax payers will not fix our tax gap. here we are. the reason why congress went the audit route as opposed to the

simplification route, is because of who they believed the eitc claims were. the rhetoric around welfare tells us what that means. fast forward 10 years after all of these -- over $1 fund was spent and the audit policies were put into place. the error rate barely budged. because the problem is not with the cheating. it is with the complexity of the earned income tax credit. what has congressional in action with respect to simplicity done? it has done a couple of things. if you look at to the eitc claimants are, one show touche -- one study shows over 50% are white. congress is using this rhetoric about welfare cheats or lacy

black people waiting for government checks. they were auditing to death low- income white taxpayers because they make up the majority of eitc claimants. if you wanted to target the lacy black taxpayer, you were missing the mark. -- the lacy black taxpayer, you were missing the mark. taxpayers use tax return preparers then the typical taxpayer. they use refund anticipation loans to a higher% figure average taxpayer. 63% of all refund anticipation loans go to eitc tax payers. they have high fees.

all of this money that was designed to be put in the pockets of low income tax payers are going to talk to turn for paris and refund anticipation loan originators. -- are going to tax return preparers and returned anticipation loan originators. in mississippi real tax -- it misses the real tax cheats. small businesses are contributing to the tax gap. they deal with cash. those are hard-working taxpayers that we do not want to be interested with respect to audits. by focusing all of the energy on low income taxpayers, congress has dropped the ball with respect to high income individuals, corporations, any number of players that earn

significant amounts of money but to pay less than their fair in taxes because they are figuring out ways to cheat the government illegally. i want to conclude by saying with respect to the earned income tax credit what focusing on the reducing the error rate has done has harmed taxpayers that congress never intended to. it has taken them eyes off of the real problem with respect to tax revenues that are not flowing into the treasury that should be. it has not allowed simplification to occur. the earned income tax credit is designed to reward work. when to learn -- or low income

taxpayers have to pay money from their earned income tax credit to tax return preparers and to refund anticipation loan originators, the earned income tax credit is not working the way it was assigned to work. implicit bias could teach us something here. thank you. >> thank you for the presentation. i want to thank justin levinson and his co-editor robert smith for pulling us together to write a provocative and important piece of work. i am grateful to be here. i am painful to harvard law school for the opportunity. thank you for hosting us. i am grateful for those people who served on our major panels

because they have so much information to impart to west to help us understand the dynamics -- to in part to west to help us understand the dynamic issues. i will try to demystify how implicit bias operates in into our actual property law. -- in intellectual property law. many people think intellectual property -- this is based on a narrative. they think it is an objective and rational discipline with the law, that it has no tinge of gender or race bias. it is severely tinged. think about where we get our intellectual property origen law. we get it from the u.s.

constitution, specifically on oracle roman one clause run and eight. -- article number 1, clause eight. these framers of imagine where they were and what their contacts was at the time. many of those who sign the documents were slaveholders. the constitution is a flawed document. it has delivered a plot drafting. let me read that clause. i will jump into why i believe implicit bias is operating in this realm. article i, section vii says to promote the progress of science and youthful art by securing for

a limited time to authors and inventors the rights to their respective writings and discoveries. think about what the framers were trying to do with that otherwise utilitarian lines which. they are trying to reward a monopoly to authors and inventors. question the context of the u.s. constitution and the tractors at the time. asked who were they in tending to reward with a monopoly. and copyrights. they're not thinking about the slave. they were not thinking about blacks who were brought here without well. they were thinking about their white slave owners. a late professor has an excellent example that illustrates how this impacted the slaves. the example was in the discovery

of a better technique to plow. who was doing the ploughing? not the slave owners. the slave was doing the plowing. the slate came up with the invention to make his work easier. -- display panel with the intention to make his work easier. did he get the benefit of the reward of a patent? his slave master did. these people are not worthy of being called inventors. they do not have the spirit of invention. they are not real people. it is the slave owner who has the right to claim ownership to invention. that is the origin and the belief system around article i, clause vii. that is where i like to start, giving you the story.

i would introduce you to how that thinking has pervaded the patent and copyright cluase and our legislation, mainly our copyright legislation. within our copyright act, we have another built-in bias based upon that constitutional premise. it is that copyright law should prepare all over a -- primero over an option that has become vogue for those who want to capitalize off of their persona. the reason i chose these two to look as to investigate the in distance -- insistence of implicit bias is because in american culture we have reverence for the copyright act. we have reverence for those we think our creators of knowledge.

we want to reward them with the benefits of that creation. think about too many of these creators are writing about. they are often writing about the other. women, people of color, and those of the people who have recently understood they are in viewed with a right of publicity. look at how the copyright act works. you will know that the copyright act prevails and pre-empts the right of publicity. you may say that is the law in action. look at context. understand who are the copyright holders. many of our copyright holders

are institutional copyright holders. who are these people who are institutions? they are the music companies, the media companies, the publishing companies, who state that they have in essence created this thing that one may call another's right of publicity. i look at in this chapter certain cases. one of them is the vanna white case. i use this case to try to explain how a white woman could be reduced to a level of illegitimacy because of the job that she does. she sued samsung for imitating her right of publicity because they developed a robot with a blond wig and some jewelry. they spoofed her.

they did not ask her permission. she sued them on the right of publicity cause of action. although she prevailed and eventually, -- eventually, what happened was someone wrote a scathing dissent. he reduced her to not even a person, but saying that if you trust of a monkey in a week, that monkey could do the job that vanna white has done. i would have thought that cannot be. it is in his opinion. the idea there is she is not a person who is legitimate and not to claim this right. the judge writes that it was not vanna who created her right of

publicity but the show's producers who created her right of publicity. she does not have a claim for that action. that is an interesting position to take because he is saying is the institutional copyright holder who has created her celebrity. samsung is the victim here because all they try to do was exercise its freedom of expression. as against her right of publicity. let me give you a little more context about the institutional copyright holder vs. the right of publicity holder. in our society, culture is defined by the images we see. we define who we are, we defined what we believe by what we see

in the media. if the institutional copyright holder is given this gravitas of suppressive from frigid of supremacy over the copyright holder, -- supremacy over the copyright holder, it has supremacy over who has been disenfranchised. most of these cases claiming right of publicity are coming from one of -- women, african- americans, who are trying to grasp what is most important in today's society. that is economic value of information that informs cultures. being able to define oneself in 1's identity is what we have left in our economic tool kit.

in intellectual property law, this has economic of the patients. to also provide you more context, what is it about the intellectual property regime that we should be challenging? we should be challenging this regime that says intellectual property law has no implicit bias. we should be challenging that intellectual property law is rational and objective and as passionate and a neutral. we should be bringing to bear what we understand about it in this important arena where we define culture and bring in economic value to those information assets that we think is most important.

i want to give you another example to show you how implicit bias operate in international property. i do not know if many of you have any familiarity with terror celebrities, those we see on boxes of cereal or on products. there is a case about two that came about at the same time. one featured a para-celebrity who was an african american woman and another who was a white man. he was on the folger coffee cup. june tony was on loreal perm products. these cases went through their restrictive -- perspective trials to show how jurors

reacted to those plaintiffs. case was initially dismissed on summary judgment. the other received 15 -- $ let me just tell you what the court said in some of that case language. the court said here is a gentleman who is revered. he is no longer a model. he is a kindergarten teacher. but he has a face that is very idealic. and so we have to protect this person's image. we have to protect the fact that he has a persona that is able to call reference. interestingly enough, with russell kristov, it seemed like what the court was most concerned about was that when

he picture was put on foal jers -- folgers jars in south america, they darkened the faces, and the court found that rather objectionable. i think that had a lot to do with that $15.6 million victory. that trial is under review, but i give those to you as examples of how implicit bias ask operating in what otherwise would be considered unbiased and race neutral injures -- injures prudence. thank you. >> susan and i would like to echo professor conway's thanks

for everyone for giving us the opportunity to participate in this exciting and amazing dialogue and to share our thoughts with you. we are both new moms of very young infants. so if we break out into song, excuse us. that sour daly work. the main proposition of our chapter is that implicit bias against native people advances continuing dispossession of native land and self-governing authority in much the same what that initial bias did the same things. as professor lawrence noted this morning, part of addressing implicit bias is to provide necessary context to the contemporary problem is to make the implicit explicit in the present. for us this involves shining a

line between shining a light on historic bias towards native people and self-governing authority. susan has did he pictured a few images that depict historic bias. i am going to turn the floor over to her for a moment to introduce those images. >> first, 1804. the death of jayne mccray by beyond vanderlin. savage, violent, cruel. 189, harper's magazine. a native people at a school for savages is begging we want big talkie. uneducated, ig fortunate, inferior.

1893 this. is the image of hawaii's last reigning queen. primitive, subhuman, in need of american control. all together they show that native people are incapable of september 11 governance. >> this dominant stereotype depicted through the slides was made in three steps. the first was to racialize native people to diminish political identities. second to attribute negative characteristics in their group compass its. and third to conjure the negativity in legal zors. this idea of race first of all. in many forms we take for granted this idea that

discrimination against native people is racial bias without acknowledges that the assignment of a racial identity donative people is a delint maneuver. at the time the united states formed, the united states as a government had a much less legitimate claim to the land and resources here than the native governments that had been existing in the same territory since time immem moral. in order to justify the united states' dominion over the native governments, they had to shift the legal question, whether one sovereign is unilaterally dispossess another sovereign of all of its governing authority and resources and recast that as a racial question of whether these purportedly superior european-americans controlling the unless government had a more legitimate claim to land, resources and governing authority than the existing government.

it is called the basic racist move at work in indian law. when we are talking about issues being faced by native communities in contemporary times, the idea that native communities are a race is very significance, very deliberate and carries with it a framework of thinking about native people that de-politicizes them and turns them into a race rather than political ept ities -- entities. the second idea is the bias against a group versus bias against individuals. the united states government had to attempt to simulate the individuals. for that reason, you can't have racial bias operating in much the same way it operates in other grooms. you want to have the notion

that they can be functioning members of the society. the bias is focused at native societies as groups as opposed to individuals. this is not to suggest there wasn't any racial bias against people as individuals. this is just to suggest that the dominant discourse was really about native people functioning as governments and groups. and then the idea of conjuring legitimacy for those biases in law, a professor objectsed that no self regarded civilized society can encombage in the horror of destroying another people for very long without appealing to a revered legal discourse to justify its acts. we see that in the early injures prude --

>> there were u.s. supreme court cases describing people as fierce savages, whose occupation was war and called them remnants of a race once powerful, now weak and diminished in numbers. that leg mated those ideas for subsequent generations for americans, who accepted as given that they have a weakened group as well as a belief that the united states has a right, and a duty to take care of and control those grooms. susan is going to talk about how that manifests in the present time. >> today such characterizations that she was talking about are rare. but these stereotypes are alive

and well and are still harmful. using various measures, social scientists have documented the existence of this now implicit bias against canadian and originals, native americans and native hawaiians. there is only one study i know of on native hawaiians, and justin did that. i don't have the time to discuss all the studies, but the four or five we did find confirmed what we already know, that implicit bias is real and pervasive. it curse in various social contexts, and it influences our thinking and our behavior towards native groups. specifically, these empirical studies show that today's implicit views of native peoples reflect at least three of the underlying racist

assumptions that up to date lie the dominant stereotype that she described. first, native peoples are less american than whites or more foreign. so in that study, ironically, people more easily associated american with white than with native. second, native peoples are aggressive in the criminal law context, which is reminisce ent of the savage or violent native person. in that study, people more easily remembered or misremembered aggressiveness by the native hawaiian person in different factual scenarios involving confrontations. and the last, native people are non-academic and in need of benevolent assistance. in other words, ignorant. there are two stud chris that

we found, and those showed that in partner ship or group settings, native americans or and ridge always were viewed as preference non-academic tasks, or they were in need of benevolent assistance. as she mentioned, of course these racist assumptions have deep roots in u.s. law and discourse. one native society was described as a foreign government, and described as a state of savages. what is now important is that these implicit biases form the basis for relationship with state and federal governments. this limits the authority of native people to govern. it is seen in modern day case

opinions that challenge native people's ability to govern responsibly. i don't have time to give them to you right now, but programs at the time at the end we will have time to explain some of those. these lasting assumptions fuel the notion that native people today are incapable of september 11 governance, and they justify continuing acts against them. so, what are some of the things that we can start looking at to address this? in our chapter we contend that eliminating implicit bias against native people is an integral part of a larger project of repatriation of land, resources, of governing authority donative people. and very briefly, we urge researchers, social scientists, to investigate a broader range of stereotypes against native

people and the behavioral consequences of implicit bias against them. we explode de-biasing techniques that are appropriate for this legal and cultural context. and we argue that attempts to lessen or eliminate implicit bias against native people must take into account, the cultural and social roots of this bias, and it must seek to change the structures, legal, political and otherwise that serve to maintain these biases. thank you. [applause] >> hi, everyone. i come today from the thurgood marshall school of law from houston, texas. i am honored to be a part of this group of scholars.

i would like to offer a special things to c-span for bringing this from the academic world to the public. my presentation is called delusions of the mind and behavior. implicit bias is delusional thoughts. it is untrue ideas about people within the mind that manifest in unfair behavior. the worth terp ort means twisted. it means twisted behavior and anti-social behavior. this does result from implicit bias every day in our society. i decided to hone in today on a true example of implicit bias that happened to someone who i know very well in the legal academy. i am going to call him rico and hopefully no one will know who i am talking about, because the last thing i want to do as i argue here as i argue for expanded tort liability.

he is a strikingly good looking man. he graduated from one of the top law schools in the country, just like harvard and decided he wanted to become a law professor. he gave a presentation at a law school and did a very good job. i was not there. but when they opened discussions about him, a number of the women objected to hiring him. the women said he made them feel uncomfortable. they said that he seemed conceited. and the word womanizer was raised. this is a married man with children. and the conceited thing i found as fascinating, because i was looking into stereo times as part of my book chapter and came across an article that said the number one stereotype applied to attractive people is that they are conceited. i would have thought it was stupid. i can tell you from first-hand experience, i have a lot of

attractive friends, and they are the least self assured people i know. it may be because people expect them to be conceited and treat them with hostility, and they end up with low self esteem. i can tell you point black ricco is not conceited. he is one of the nicest people i have known and has been a great source of support for me personally. in talking about what happened to rico, i am going to focus on three questions. one is a causation question. how did such a nice guy get characterized in a way so untrue. the second question is should we use toward -- tort as a way of adoctorsing this? the third one is practical. if we accept that tort liability is an exceptable means, how do we address that. >> how did the stereo times of latin men lead to his rejection as a law professor.

i will say someone stood up and took exception about what was said about him, and he got the job. why did these women not like him? what did he do? what did he say? when pressed, these women had no answer. but most of us are aware that the hispanic male stereotype conjures up images of machismo, sultry, sexy, chief nistic. this is where i think it came from. he doesn't have those characteristics, but because his hispanic good looks are so salient, it brought in a flood of assumptions about what kind of person he is, even though they didn't match the content of his character at all. i think it happens all the time. i think his biggest crime was showing up cute and hispanic, and that was all it took for these stereotypes to come flooding in and him being

rejected as a candidate despite being a fabulous candidate. so the next question is the normative one. do we want tort liability as a way of addressing this problem? a tort is an act of civil wrongdoing. it means twisted behavior, wrongful behavior, anti-social behavior. behavior we want to stop and quell' opposed to honorable behavior. it is the barometer of minimal civil expectations. if we fall below that, we can be liable, be sudan pay money damages. tort behavior is bad because it hurts individuals, but it also hurts society at large. this is why we have punitive damages, for example, to make sure it goes beyond the context of individual latta and goes out to society and deters others. punitive damages are usually the greatest amount of damages

in a latta. scholars agreed that tort liability is extremely flexible, and it responds to social problems. now since the mid 19th century in our country, starting with a case called brown v kendall, tort liability is generally were a principle of fault. you must have done something negligencely to pin liability. that has begun to change. in the mid 20th century, we as a society decided it wasn't so important to prove fault. it is more important to make sure we have good social policy and to assure compensation to victims. we have already begun to depart from the fault principle over the years, and i think it is happening more and more. a number of courts have departed altogether from the idea of a duty of care. they said we see behavior that is so wrongful that we can't

tolerate it. we are not going to worry about the first element. we are going to bypass the duty issue and say there was a duty when there wasn't one. there was a case in california in 1983 where a bartender refused to allow a patron to make an emergency 9-1-1 call. another non-patron was being beaten to death outside the bar. he said i have no duty to you. the court in california said we don't care basically. what he did was so wrong and so anti-social. the man died. he was beaten to death possibly because the bartender wasn't let this non-patron make a free call. courts are starting to see that we need to watch what we do with tort law in order to make sure we are to continue to construct the kind of society we want. the turn of the 21st century ushered in another expression of law, and that is about law

expression. this is a way of looking at tort liability differently. not so much based on fault, but maybe based on the idea that when people understand that something is wrongful, it may influence the way they behave and may change their norms. my favorite example of this is a law in sweden. in 1979 sweden was the first country in the world to ban parental spanking in the privacy of one's home. the swedes were pretty upset about this in the beginning, but after time they accepted it, and now they wouldn't have it any other way. the law had no penalty, no criminal or civil penalty, but it worked because it got people to think about it. it changed the way people behaved without any penalties. assuming that we believe tort liability is a way of addressing this issue, how can we do it? well, implicit bias can't constitute a toward anymore

than an unspoken thought. we have to use a predicate tort and show that implicit bias caused that tort in some way. one example might be punitive damages. again, not so much about fault, not so much about punishment, but about exposing the seriousness of this problem by making big damage awards that will catch the media's attention. get people thinking and talking. get people to say that this is not much adieu about nothing. this is very serious. impretty is implicit bias causes serious injury to people. loss of life sometimes. it is an issue that needs to be taken seriously. the other thing i thought might work is equitable remedies. in rico's example, for example, i think what happened there was the hiring process in lawsuits is so subjective and often

arbitrary, we don't have set rules or forms, there is blind voting, which is ubiquitous in our category. if rico were to bring a claim, maybe a court could fashion a remedy and tell a law school how you must hire, you must review their background, their scholarship record. you must create some type of quantitative analysis of why you are hiring how are hiring. that is one way of deal with implicit bias and make sure the delusions in one's mind don't end up costing that person a lifetime of job security and millions of dollars. that is what a tenure track position is. it is a multi-million dollar

contract, a lifetime of security and prestige. i think that realistically tort law could be used in addressing unqugs bias. it is unfair. it is ubiquitous, and very few people know about it. if we did allow some liability, it could provide remedies to the victims and also spark debate and get people thinking about it, talking about it, and lead us to a more fair society for everyone. thank you. [applause]

>> good afternoon, my fellow humans. it's a pleasure to be able to participate in this milestone conference, and i, too, am grateful to all of the organizers, conceivers and developers, and i very much appreciate the privilege. i have learned a great deal, and i appreciate the opportunity to be involved in the download. my assignment essentially was implicit racial bias across the law as relates to medicine. i thought a bit about it and came up with a slightly different topic, but the same content i would say. but the doctor's hidden brain, the patient's neglected pain, what can we do about it? i am going to try to cover those three items as we go forward. some months back i was asked to

present a dr. martin luther king lecture at a hospital in northern massachusetts. i was trying to be a little bit cute with it, so i said why don't we just say what would dr. martin luther king like us to know about health care disparities? so that is what i did, and i backed into it. i ran across a quote after doing that, and i hadn't seen the quote before, but here it is. "of all the qualms of inequality, injustice in health is the most shocking and inhumane. why do you think he said that. we have been talking here for the last two days about all of the injustices. why is injustice in health care the most shocking and inhumane. if we think about it a little

bit, when are we moat vulnerable? when are we most frightened? when are we most insecure? when do we have to speak another language or understand another language? more over, we may go to a stranger for help. so it is a bad place to be, and it is a very inhumane reality. this is sort of the proof. this is a book written in 2002, unequal treatment. just to clear the deck, i think this pretty irrefutably documents all kinds of health inequities. i am going to do a quick review. they reviewed about 600 pier reviewed articles in the literature that documented disparities in health care. it describeded all the different individuals who are at risk, and we are going to look at that.

but these studies were done with excellent controls. the socioeconomic status was controlled. insurance was controlled. the stage of disease and the co-morbidities were documented. it turns out there were rough -- roughly 13 grooms of people who experience disparities. africans, appalachian poor, asia americans, the elderly, gays, lesbians, by section wals and transgendered people. imgrants, latinos, native americans, obese people, people living with disabilities, some religious groups, women, and not just minority women, and prisoners. please raise your hand if you are not in any of those grooms and you don't know anybody that is that you care about. [laughter] so let's look at some of the specific situations. again, 600 in the literature,

but just a few. africans receive fewer kidney and liver transplants. if they have diabetes. they are more likely to have an am tution. with prostate cancer, they are more likely than others to have castration as treatment. among all women, they receive fewer joint replacements, women do. less medications following heart attacks. and even the ement services don't get women to the hospital with heart problems as rapidly as men. and this kind of summarizes it actually. the lady says give it to me straight, doc. tell me what is wrong. he says well, you are not a white male. this is a way to look at some of these things. latinos, i did mention. i saved it because we talked about the patient's neglected pain. this is a stud -- study that shows there is less pain

medication for fractures in latino malisse in southern california. it was done years back. major long-bohn fractures. the thigh bone, the bone below the knee, those are long bone fractures, and it showed that latino malisse going to the emergency room in a major southern california medical center received 50 -- 50% less likely to receive narcotic medication for their long bone fracture. we know that fractures are not psychological or hysterical. you can't fake them very well. it is easy to diagnose. it is notdiagnose. these individuals, 50% less likely to get narcotic pain medication. this is so shocking that the study was repeated in atlanta, looking at african-american

males, and the same results were found. this has been covered in a lot of ways by different speakers different ways, but i want to share with you, and it talks about the the inertia of racism. we talked about its about socialization, environmental racism, but this is a racial iceberg. is 10% above the surface, and those are the encounters, the difficulties. but this iceberg is in a sea of history. it is helpful to me in any way to get a feeling of understanding about this and russia, this environmental racism. it depends on the fact that in this sea of history, this racial iceberg is supportive, as its inertia and at the fact, and that is due to and we are

impacted still by slavery, by jim crow, colonialism, the civil war itself, a japanese internment, in a grayson, lynchings, the monroe doctrine, the mexican-american war, all of these events are not just in the history books in the past, but they are affecting our day- to-day realities. this is from a book that i will suggest to you, but i would like to share with you this definition of race. reese is a doing, a dynamic set of historically derived and institutionalized ideas and practices that sort people into groups according to a perceived physical and human characteristics that are often imagined to be negative, an inmate, and shared. associate differential values, power and privilege, which these

characteristics, and establishes a hierarchy among the different groups and confers opportunity accordingly. isn't that what we have been talking about all day in various different iterations, and different places, but all those dynamics are quite realistic, and this is a very powerful definition and comes from this book, which i recommend to you. if you are here you will get something out of this bill, a promise you. it comes from the center of comparative studies at stanford. it is published by norton press. it addresses in a scholarly way many of the various issues, race realities that we deal with. i always shown this when i talk about implicit bias, and the g this to usresentein

this morning, and you can find out if you have implicit bias whether it is against all people, obese, a gay people, you can check out in the privacy of your own room. why did i say that? one of the things, i worked my life as an orthopedic spinal surgeon, but then got involved in medical education, and i have had the pleasure of working with others and began to look at these issues of health care disparity. the new information i can away with the reality -- i studied ford in ecology and was a psychology major -- this book is a wonderful collection of all of his various iterations, and it is called "the hidden brain." those doctors who neglected the pain of the african-american

patients with fractures in atlanta and latino fractures in southern california, their hidden brain was alive and well, and these are examples in this book. here is one. if you look at this, you see this is a graph of the town is -- i am sorry -- leaders of milk and pounds in an office in england, and you go to the tea place, and on the honor system if you are supposed to put a pound in the kitty. the demonstrators were able to soak on alternate weeks, not very much, as you see, in week 10, more in week nine, and alternating the dark dots show

more money in the kitty than night. closer to the amount that should have gone in on the honor system. also, in these weeks they did not get as much in the kitty. the next -- next to where the milk was on the wall, there were pictures. if you look at this, and the first week they did not get very much money, because there were flowers on the wall. the next week, eyes on the wall. the following week, etc., and at the bottom, look at those eyes. that was a good payoff that particular week. when the experiment was over, the people indicated that they had no idea, did not notice any pictures or anything else, but the hidden brain was operative in that circumstance. this is a study that showed that you can take someone who says they are not biased and give them an iat test shows they are

biased, and then you have them do a test to treat patients, those who said they are not biased but showed up on the tait test did not treat the african- american patients but that they should have had in the particular study. the other thing we should say as dr. stressors, when you are stressed, you are more likely to have your stereotypes become operative. this is a lot of things that stresses doctors, and there is a long list. you only read 19 articles a day, a year.ays this was surprising, pilots

and health facilities are four times as common as in other private-sector industries. i do not want to stay over time, so the solution is education, education, and education, and that is what he had been talking about. that does not do it all. , i hope this ecologist and scholars here will teach us how we can reeducate the subconscious. that will help us a lot. this is the book that is available, my tent from a physician's perspective, taking care of patients over the years, and how i think some of these things might happen in the doctor-paintient relationship, and suggestions for patients how to help the doctor to help them receive equitable care. the main theme of that is to seek our common humanity. doctors should look for the

human element of the patient, and interact and relate to that human element. patients should look for the human element in the doctor and react and connect and only to that human element. there are other things we can do with a better cultural and understanding. i had the privilege in 1963 to have breakfast with dr. king oakland, california, and i did not help him very much, but i was greatly inspired. i was always inspired, and you knew you were in the presence of a very special person. i believe dr. king would want us to continue to strive to be a more humane society and for doctors and nurses and others to the humanitarian role models, as we look to try to get closer to our common humanity and eliminate all the various isms we are confronted with.

take you very much for your attention. -- thank you very much for your attention. [applause] >> thank you for your reading and insightful presentations, and also for staying on time. we are doing so well. we have our entire half-hour for our facilitation. first, a comment. implicit bias is essentially the operation automatic associations in the mind, associations that are, as these panelists help us appreciate, writed in history and that help to rationalize or legitimize or justify particular system. all of the presentations touched on those themes in some way. they help identify with some of the association's -- they helped

identify some of those the seychelles is since -- some of those associations, such as violence, please in the stomach ignorance, dehumanization, in ferry ari, and the valuation, laziness, fraudulent, harper sexuality. as the panelists show us, there are implications from across various areas of all, from tax to i.p., to medicine, and that law is far from neutral. professor white asked psychologists to help educate, to help us learn to educate the subconscious. i would also push us to find ways to educate about history, what actually transpired, and also to educate on how to

question the entitlement that a ot of the panelists' presentations help to reveal as operating in society. i will transition now to the facility the part of this panel. we have impact esteemed legal scholars, social scientists. we have one of our two facilitators, a dean from suffolk university law school who will lead our facilitation. i would like to ask for panelists to come down. i will remove the podium, and if he could come down around the desk, and i am going to leave most of the facilitation to dean nelson. i may or may not if he's my own questions. we will see how it goes.

the panelist can speak to thiif they can. i would like to push us to think about both the limits and the opportunities of viewing many of these issues through the lens of implicit bias. now i hand it over to d nelson. >> good afternoon, and thank you for staying, and we want to use this opportunity to hear from you, because i think it is important you shared your -- please -- you share your expertise, insights, and thoughts at this time. you have had the opportunity to be with us hopefully for most of the day. but as the panelists get situated, i want to start by asking you to think about the

following and to please share your thoughts by pressing your microphones on so the lights will eliminate. one of the things that dr. white said, that is indicated by the reason we're here today, is an impact question. now that we have what seems to be a growing body of works at the intersection of law and many disciplines the drought the social sciences, what next? what shall we do with all of this work? is it a case that we have to search to find , and humanity -- to find the common humanity across various disciplines? how does that look? it indicates faculties. we are looking at the tax system. judges, the practicing bar and a

patent attorneys -- how do we talk to legislators and those who are dealing with our quest for sovereignty? how do we have impact? and how do you feel about that potential? where do we go from here? i would love to hear from the panel of experts as well. questions, comments? >> i wonder if we might not start by having the panelists give us some insight based on their work and about where do we go from here, and even perhaps, connect that to what more you might have wanted to say to us, but you were so in efficient with time-keeping.

>> we can proceed that way. one of the things we want to make sure up as we were instructed was to make sure you have an opportunity because you did not have a two-out the day. if you want to chime in, please do, eliminates your microphones, and china into an otherwise we're happy to have the panelists give us more of their wisdom. dr. white? sorry, yes. >> i worry about racial disparities in health care. i have looked at nursing homes. i have expanded my view. i just saw an article on racial disparity. poor me, where do we go now, is to change the lens and a focus of the questions we're asking, and health care reform is about individual responsibility. we have moved our question away

from the structure and institutions that are causing some of the problems. when we talk about the opposite the crisis in the united states, -- the obesity crisis in the united states, we need to keep people from drinking soda, whinney to put a tax, which need to change how people eat, but it ignores the reality there are no grocery stores, that there are no health care facilities, it ignores the reality that physicians have moved out of six communities. for me, where do we go from here is to acknowledge the institutional bias, the structural bias, but also to see back into the implicit bias, which says if you give people access to health insurance, that is great, but what happens, as dr. white says, when that they actually go and are not being treated? we need to focus not just on the

individual level, but at all the issues that cause racial disparities in health care. thank you. >> did you want to add to that, droctor? >> i think this may be will address the question. i was going to attempt to respond to the more generic question, what is the next best step, and as you noticed, i'm a surgeon so i try to oversimplify things. you either fix it or do not tfix it. i have arrived at the conclusion that the world is an eternal battle between the good guys and bad guys. and that we do not have solutions right now, but i think we should all work to flail away at whatever our sphere of influence is, discipline is. we can see in a number of

different disciplines there are studies to be done, programs that people can presume and think will be effective, so you can work to establish those. people have to have access, insurance to see the position. i think the psychologists are giving us more and more information about understanding and perhaps manipulating a little bit our ability to control some of these unconscious biases. there are plenty of conscious bias is around in the meantime we can work on. we should continue to work as hard as we can in the areas which are working in and meet from time to time to share things and share ideas, and there are some of us who are trying to work on some organized things break in terms of health care, an important progress opportunity is to do more with patient education or public education so that people understand that paradigm they

are and, the game they are in, so they can help doctors to help them more. that is one area to work in. this is -- basically we are talking about focusing on humanitarianism, humane goals. getting rid of all been isms. that is the conflict, that is the challenge in my opinion. >> i will go down the line. i was fortunate to be on a panel last week in hawaii, and i shared very similar presentations, but it was talking about intellectual property rights in indigenous communities. one of the panelists suggested in his presentation, he said, very interesting, very interesting talk, but sometimes the types of things you are talking about, they fall into

this category of justice fatigue. we are out there fighting the big fights, and a lot of people do not think about intellectual property or economic incentive as justice. so i think one place we can also go is to find space for these areas that seem complex. because people are missing out on the thing that could raise their level of wealth and raise their ability to be considered in the in krupicka, by increasing their wealth, increasing what they can control, and this is control over their person and the value of that. this extends to data, information about yourself, and as if it is advocated by other second-hand aggregation

companies, so we have to start looking at additions or new models for justice. >> it was interesting, one of the things you said, in the personality case, the litigation of the successful settlement or award, which is tied to one of the things that the other professors at this morning, as far as looking optimistically for certain claimants. is it interesting problem on her point from this morning, said that he could actually is established that the darkening of an image would prove harmful, given all of our biases. >> that is all i could think about. he is the movement personified on how right of publicity cases should be litigated and how jurors should act to come to the decision making and how appellate courts actually should respect the jury for

recognizing identity and persona over institutional copyright holders who are the fundamental holders of the power in our intellectual property perino. >> i wanted to follow up on what this talked about the economics, so i talk about tax and how much of your money get you get -- you get to keep helps build wealth. a couple years ago i wrote a piece saying why the obama-esque pay too much in taxes. in two dozen 9 they had $5 million of income, most of that from his book -- in 2009 they had $5 million of income, most of it from book royalty income, and that is taxed at 35%. the typical $5 million man - president- and mrs. obama's

effective rate was 32%. the typical tax rate of a $5 million couple is 23%. the question is, word the obama- esque tried to reduce the federal deficit by paying extra taxes? no. the typical $5 million man makes about half of it from stocks, in the form of capital gains and corporate dividends, which is taxed at no more than 15%. we have this mist out there that the more income you have, the higher your tax bill which is nothing further from the tree. we have two tax systems, separate but unequal. where taxed up to 35%. people who have enough money to let their money work for them by owning stock get to pay taxes at 15%.

for every dollar, you get the people -- you get to keep 65% versus 85%. this is your pocketbook. the next time you hear a text story, i begin, listen, and then get mad and write your members of congress, because i did a study, because everybody says the reason why the law is the way it is because congress has been captured by special interest groups. congress has been captured by congress. i look at the financial disclosure forms for the senate. 100 senators. it is quicker to get through it than 4 minute 35 house members. the typical american public at large, less than one in five own stock in a way that makes them eligible for the 15% rate.

they owned in their retirement accounts and are taxed at 35%. you have to own it in a taxable account, the way warren buffett owns it. less than one in five americans owned stock in a way that makes them eligible for the 15% rate. most of us are getting less, so we need to change this. when i looked at the 100 senators, nine in 10 own stock in a way that makes them eligible for the 15% rate. we do not need to say they have been captured by rich people. they are rich people who have stock in a way that makes them eligible for this great. do not expect congress to fix this, because it is in their financial interest not to. it isn't your financial interest for them to fix it -- this is in your financial interest for the to fix it.

>> did you want to jump in? >> was got to ask a different question about native peoples. thank you for the panel for and a lightning presentation. professor, i believe you mentioned in your presentation there are examples of present that day block that reflects implicit bias is against native peoples. i wonder if he could eliminate that for us. -- i wonder if you could illuminate thatmina for us. >> one is a recent law that was passed, and the trouble law and order act is a good thing. it levees higher fines to criminal defendants. the issue there is in order to access that higher sentencing

authority the tribal governments have to more closely approximate western court systems. they have to provide civil rights as they are contemplated in the western system, and that they are able that access to hire sentencing authority. the unintended effect we see there is that customary laws is being silenced in a way to allow the governments to become more powerful, and we believe that reveals the thought process of the federal government, that government that looks like traditional governing structures are less capable of meting out justice in an appropriate way. that is one major example that we provide. the doctrine of federal indian law, the power over native peoples which gives congress unfettered authority to legislate with respect to native

people, instead come out there is a ward-guardian relationship between the federal government and the native peoples that persist to the very day, although those ideas are antiquated. >> did you want to jump in? >> what of the easiest ways of dealing with implicit bias and how it comes out in statements made by others, defamation is the result of bias, is to call people out on it. what happened was a faculty but was lost, and his reporter was incensed. he stood up and said i think you vote against him because he is so good looking, and i want you to think through what you just did. a revote was called the got the job. scented happened at -- something that happened at my school --

the epitome of what we want in our law school, and this young lady has been very successful and happened to be very cute, sweet, and kindhearted. she is one of my favorite colleagues. someone made a statement that she thinks she is better than us. i said wait a minute. did you just say that the youth -- what is that based on? is it because she is beautiful? people said, did you say she is beautiful? i did, because i cannot understand you cannot say that about her. people strained up in their chairs that i had the gall to call out. we are light years. you cannot go into a court of law and say she is a bimbo or she is better than us. we have all taken evidence classes. you have to testify to facts,

and the minute you start making straight comments, objection, sustained, of course. we of all people should know better than to make statements we cannot back up with facts, and that is what i think we need to do, be conscious of what things are said about people stand up, and we can for making people justify what they say. >> you said a possible solution in the faculty governance, within the educational system, extrapolate into other settings as possibilities, but to have court supervision of some sort or to have an objective approach, and i would love to hear what people think about whether that is actually -- do

you have the confidence, given we have heard it this morning, for judges to help us in that way. how do people feel about that as a solution? but what is their role of education and the curricul a that has as mandatory component, not an elected, a cultural, and its component in the law? as we think about our curricula, how likely is it or how important is it that we think about these types of insight and innovation within our curricula? >> one of the things i said, do

you realize if a title senate action is west title seven action is filed, we should be setting the standards. we are teaching people about justice. it is happening every day in every law school in the country. it seems to me that is an abomination. we should do it ourselves. we should not need a court to tell us how to hire. we should get it right, set the standard, and get others to think through how it should be done. i m blown away by what i have seen in terms of talking about people and their credentials and how we hire and did this blind voting. you better be ready to justify your vote. >> mixed in with this, first of

all, please know about if you do not know already that the american association of medical colleges has a tutorial for search committees. it does a nice job for reviewing all these kinds of issues to try to diminish unconscious biases nicely.pells it outt i will second what you just talked about about speaking up. that is important. the last thing it mentioned, this idea of cultural literacy, that shouldn't we all, all educated people, we should be historically lyric, we should know how to read, and have some scientific literacy. all educated people, all of our cross-cultural interaction -- how many times a day do we have

interactions with people of a culture different than our own? the large majority of those interactions are cross-cultural. should we not have basic literacy in that area? >> one is to say i have been a law professor since 1991, and i think the worst offenders of following the law are law professors. my one quotation, from a former colleague, he said, dorothy, the rules are for the bad people, they are not for us. as a defense to why he was not following stated procedures. >> in fact that is the challenge, and aid is very interesting, dr. white, to pick up on your last comment, which is how well laid out these principles are within medicine

teach our medical school students. whether or not they fully get at and we know from your presentation and others that we have a long way to go in medicine cannot but what is a very interesting on ball law side -- i am a professor of medicine and law -- is we do not structure, did not have anything near the same kinds of structures where expectations to teach students at all about the potential for bias, for explicit bias, or implicit bias at all. it is quite possible to go through three years of legal training at all school, and to be taught about ethics, but actually come away with nothing about gender or about race, and when you put in context that it has only been within the last 28 years that we have neutralized terms and hour law schoolteaching so it is not

just the reasonable man, now we at the reasonable person, but that is something that has only developed within the last couple of decades. we do, within the context of the law, have a long way to go, and we can certainly start now at our law schools trade, what that touches on is -- law schools. >> what that touches on is thinking about institutional responsibilities to control biases, so you are mentioning some of those avenues to control bias here. i wanted to add to that, when i was listening to the doctor, i was zeroing on what she was saying, because she is teaching we are unapologetically utilitarian in order to benefit those we want to benefit. interestingly enough, in

intellectual property law, that is what underlies our patent and copyright regime, his utilitarianism. gets make it so that we economic news will benefit from offers and inventors, but that is a false narrative. we want to promote authors and inventors, and we talk about as if they are individuals, but the real benefactors of intellectual property, enforcement, and protection are the institutional copyright holders. are the institutional patent holders, former civil -- pharmaceutical companies, so this leads you into the area of hiv aids drugs paid is pervasive intellectual property. how do we get -- how do we get institutional responsibility

when the status " is meant to protect the institution? >> does it matter then, as we think about diversity, our institutions and our structures, or is the structure itself is so deeply acculturated, invested, but entrenched with these biases? >> i have a question going back to the natives. do we have time for that? great. the question is for suzan. regarding the hawaiian islands and the state, much of that land is owned by the native hawaiians? secondly, what are they doing with a land that they have under the control? are they bringing in any types of businesses? are they doing anything to better -- to improve their

lives and to bring in much- needed revenue in order to improve their lives. unfortunately, here in new england, the only business that a lot of the native american tribes have on their property are casinos. but at least they are definitely doing much better than they were beforehand. >> ok, your question raises a lot of very important points, and i will try to address them in the brief time. native hawaiians are not recognized by the federal government as self-governing in the same way that many native communities on the continent are. ancetype of formal governme over land is not recognized for

native claims. that is part of our chapter. i hope you get a chance to read it. legislation proposed to grant that or a similar type of recognition to native hawaiians as self-governing has been pending and has been controversial for a variety of political reasons. it certainly has been expressed by the current senate committee on indian affairs, but the priority of that chair is at least have some sort of parity between the native hawaiian communities and other communities, operating within the united states with respect to self-governance. we hope some sort of parity will be coming. as far as what land base belongs to the native community, that is another very highly controversial question. the native community would say everything. i think there are many outside that community that would agree. there are certain pockets right

now, that despite the situation i just described, where native hawaiian authority over certain places and things is recognized. the park department of hawaiian home lands, homestead's within hawaii that are designated as territory for native hawaiians. the department of hawaiian home lands, on behalf of the state of hawaii, and ministers that land trust on behalf of the federal government. you have the office of hawaiian affairs, by way of full disclosure, i work for that office, and what the office of quaint affairs does is administered -- the office of hawaiian affairs it does is administered the land trust that is set aside for the budget of the condition of native hawaiians, and the focus of the office of hawaiian affairs is to impact systemic change in major

societal spheres, housing, and the focus is the idea of governing. the community is doing so. i think to speak to the our original question, what we think can be done going forward, i think the conversation needs to shift when talking about native peoples in two major ways. one, we are constantly looking to federal law and state law to define native communities, the bounds of their authorities, where their territory ends and begins. that needs to be shifted. the conversation has to go back to what the native communities understand the extent of their authority to be, their identities as governments, but their land base is and what they can do there.

that is the starting point of the conversation that will lead to a different conversation. with respect to the idea of other native peoples are race or political entities, that conversation needs to shift their as well. when you discussed native communities in the context of race, all of a sudden, by virtue you are assigning a ideas in a framework that is not applicable, and we need to grapple with the idea that separatism and even discrimination, the right to be separate, rather than equal in the native context -- and we're talking about politics and the governing of territory -- can be a pause in the principal when we are looking at the a party of native government's the governmentt -- government their own people. these are important points that

she can ship the conversation. >> it is my job to close the session. i would like to thank our facilitator, dean nelson, waffle palace, and also our insightful audience. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> hour countdown to the convention continues, with the republican convention starting on monday. every minute, every speech, why

and on c-span, c-span radio, and online. speakers include ann romney, chris christie, congressman paul ryan, and presidential nominee mitt romney. he is our online convention hub to watch video feeds and connect with other viewers come out all /2012.pan.org >> earlier today nick ronnie -- mitt romney and paul ryan stopped in michigan. here is a look. >> i love being home in this place where we were raised. ann was born in henry ford

hospital. no one has ever asked to see my purchased a ticket. they know this is the place where we were born and raised. >> a reminder you can see this rally later tonight at 8:00 eastern. earlier today the center for strategic and budgetary assessments hosted a discussion on the defense department budget and the impact of cuts. the pentagon has been making plans for $350 billion of cuts that are part of the 2011 debt ceiling agreement. this is an hour 15 minutes.

>> i think we are ready. good morning, everyone. my name is todd harrison. thanks for coming out on a friday morning, in august, and d.c., when everyone should be on vacation. we are not, but thanks for coming out. we will focus on the fiscal year 2013 defense budget that the administration put forth to congress and is now being considered. also, sequestration and what that will mean for dod. the briefing this morning, less than 30 minutes, and then open it up for questions and answers. the first part is what is in the 2013 budget request, how it

is different, and it is consistent with a new strategic guidance for the department. the second part is sequestration and what that will mean for dod, and i want to do a more detailed analysis, what it will mean in terms of budget authority, and then talk about what that will mean. i will start with an overview of defense spending. this chart shows total national inflation-nding anin adjusted dollars. the blue part is the bass part. the red funding is the funding for the iraq and afghanistan. in its inflation-adjusted dollars, defense spending and is that an in hundres relatively high level. it is slightly below but near

the previous peak in spending that occurred in rfy 1985. that is one way of looking at defense spending. cahohow you are taking total ofe spending and you are dividing it by total economic output for the u.s.. gdp has grown steadily over the past several decades. since 1947 we have averaged credit of about 3.2% annually. the defense budget has risen and fallen in cycles several times. defense spending as a percent of gdp will be 4.0%. war funding --t

this is the lowest it will have been since 2001. defense is nowhere near its norm since world war ii. since then we have averaged 6.4% of gdp. we are well below that. as a percentage of the federal budget, defense spending be about 18.5% of total federal spending. if you take out war spending, it is 50% of the total federal budget. that is consistent with modern- day norms. what does this tell you about the overall level of defense spending? it tells you is that a relatively high level in terms

of inflation-adjusted dollars. it is affordable as a percentage of gdp, lower than the modern day norm, as a proportion of oil from federal spending, it is about where it has been for the last 20 years, roughly within the range it has been. let's look deeper within the defense budget request for 2013. there were some substantial shifts. the dashed line is what you see what was projected in last year 's request. the red line is what is in this year's request. i will note a few things here. procurement you will see in green got hit the hardest. there was a 14% reduction in planned per current spending relative what they planned the previous year. but onm was reduced only by

about 4%, and research and development money was reduced to%. this is consistent with the new strategic guidance. this calls for making readiness and training, funded out of onm, preserving readiness, and it got cut by less, so it appears to be a priority. it calls on keeping research and development to maintain our cutting edge in technology, to keep that as a high priority as well, and research and development funding was not cut as much. it appears inconsistent. to protect those areas of the budget, they had to make deeper cuts in other accounts. the cut in military personnel is primarily driven by the reduction in the number of troops, it calls for reducing strength by 100,000 over the

five-year period, and it includes a proposed cuts in basic pay that will not start until fiscal year 2015, and increases in fees that retirees pay. that is factored in here. now, i would want to point out two things that i think our long-term issues, and we are not getting to sequestration yet. that two the areas they will have to deal with -- it will be difficult -- the military- personnel-related costs. this is the defense health program and to get it is $160 billion in this budget request. that is 1/3 of the base defense budget. it has been growing much faster.

over the past decade the cost per person grew by 46%, even adjusting for inflation and not including the additional cost from the wars in iraq and afghanistan. we cannot sustain that. we released a report in july about rebalancing the military compensation system. we present an approach that would allow dod to come up with a set of reforms to compensation that would both reduce costs, which they would need to do, and approve the value benefits received. right now they are stuck in a rut where compensation costs keep growing and they keep proposing changes to cut benefits and a consistently get rejected by congress. if we continue on that path, which will will approach the point where the entire budget is consumed by personnel costs. we cannot do that, said it will result in further cuts to strike over time. that is one area the pentagon

will have to deal with, and i refer you to our july report, on rebalancing to the military compensation for a good approach for how they can take a look new -- a new look at this. readiness and training, $125 billion, and you can see here interestingly the readiness budgets for the air force, army, navy, are almost identical, down to the fraction of $1 billion, which is interesting because the services are different sizes in terms of people, have different equipment, very different missions, but their readiness budgets are almost equal. this is another area where dod have to take a serious look. no one wants to cut readiness, but the reality of the future fiscal environment may forced

changes like that. you may have to look at can be good to meet here to readiness system where some portion of the force maintains high readiness and the other parts take a conscious reduction in order to free up funds for other priorities in the budget. if you do not address this, this is over half of your defense budget, if he did not address the growth in readiness costs and the growth in military readiness costs, you're focusing on the future couts on procurement and research and development. i looked at the budget requests by services to see how they fare in this. the army took about a 9.3% reduction relative to what was requested in last year plus budget. the navy got about a 5.2% reduction. this would appear to be

consistent with the new strategic guidance as well. the strategic guidance calls for a pivot to the asia-pacific region and a greater reliance on air and sea power. the cuts are disproportionately heavy on the army. there's a caveat i point out. part of the reason the army cuts appear as large as they do in the first couple years is because the army moved personnel costs from their base budget into the war budget, the overseas contingency operations budget. these are cuts that had been previously been funded in their base budget. between the army and marine corps, it is about $6 billion of personnel costs that were moved to the war part of the budget. why did they do that put the budget caps that we will get to in the second for sequestration did not apply to the board- related funding. if you are designated as war

related, and congress this along with that, it does not count against your budget cap. if you move that money back in the and it turns out in the first year the air force takes the largest cut. this would be inconsistent with the strategic guidance. i do all this comparison of last year's budget request, the future year defense program, and then i will tell you do not read too much into the -- it is not a good indicator. if you look at the line in the middle, that gives you what defense spending actually was in each of the years in the past, when it was enacted into law by congress. each of the dashed lines show you the five-year projections. it is color coded by administration.

as you see, the last turn town -- a downturn in defense spending, there was a projected growth. the steepest part of the decline the first year predicted 5% more funding than they actually got. last year, they were overestimating what they would get by 30%. unfortunately, we might be falling into the same pattern today. we only know the difference between what they predicted in the first year and what actually happened. they were off by 5%. again. we could be falling into the same trap. that is why i offer caution.

it is not a forward-looking indicator. because it is an election year, the change in in fydp , there is not that much difference. from carter to reagan, they both predict about the same rate of growth, 4%. from reagan to the first bush administration, very little difference. from the bush administration to the clinton administration, very little difference. even from the clinton administration to george w. bush administration, very little difference. and then again from the george w. bush to the obama administration, very little difference between the last budget request and the first budget crest of the new administration -- the first

budget request of the new administration. the new administration, they have to hurry and get that budget request out quickly in the first month. they do not have time to make a whole lot of changes to it. the best they can do is make tweaks. if there is a change in administration, did not expect the next fydp will show a huge change. the large change ec from a shift in administration is typically in the second request. that is also shown on this chart. sequestration, the thing that everyone is interested in, i will walk you through the mechanics of sequestration. how you determine the amount in dollars, how you determine the percentage, and then go through emmet and outlays -- and then go

through and look at our place. figuring out the dollar amount of the cut. $546 billion for a total national defense spending. that is the budget function. about 95% of national defence spending is the department of defense. that is what i will focus on. because the super committee failed to reach an agreement for an additional $1.20 trillion, you have an automatic reduction that takes effect. that works out to $54.7 billion reduction. that leaves you $491 billion, the most you can spend for national defense in name fy13 budget. you look at, what did they

request? i am assuming that the 13 budget request goes through. that is the level of funding or close to it. if congress appropriates a little more, the cuts would be a little more. this is what the administration requested in total defense spending. $26 billion from other parts of national defence. a lot of that goes to the department of energy. $88.5 billion and more funding. -- in war funding. we have a total of $551 billion of national defense spending that counts against the cap. that would require a reduction of $59.2 billion to hit the cac level. bring it down to $491 billion. dod would receive a

proportionate amount of those cuts. this assumes the fy13 request is enacted into law. this would act on whatever level of funding is any continuing resolution. if it is a straight continuing resolution from the fy12 level of changes, it would be about $5 billion higher. you have the dollar amount of the cuts, next step, how do calculate this uniform percentage cut that is required? those are the words in the law itself. uniform percentage reduction. you start by saying, $56.5 billion. could be more or less. and then you divided by total

available funds in the applicable accounts. that includes the base defense budget, oco funding, and this is what dod has projected what would be carried forward. and then you get to subtract something. the president has notified congress he will exempt military personnel accounts. he did to exempt $149.4 billion -- you get to exempt $149.4 billion. if the president had not exempted military personnel accounts, it would work out to 8.1% reduction. that is the path not taken. >> why are you including oco?

>> oco does not count against the cap. it does not affect the dollar amount of the reduction. it does factor into the percentage because that money is in the accounts for the money is coming from. let me see if i can make this clear. the funding does not count against the budget cap, so does not affect the dollar amount of the cuts. when you calculate the percentage, it is in those accounts. the money gets mixed together so it is part of the money in those accounts. you still have a loophole that you could read designate some funding as oco elated and it will not count against your budget cap. -- related and will not count against your budget caps. if you have an account, when the cut is applied, it is coming out of that money as well.

this craft shows you by different colors of -- this graph shows issue, there is 0 cut for milpers. this is an important note. sequestration ax on budget authority. it cuts budget authority for 2013. uniform percentage cuts, if you break it down, you go to the smaller count levels, there will be a 10.3% reduction. it is down to the program project activity level. there is precedent for this, we have had sequestrations in the past. if you pick the procurement budget, for example, air force budget line-item. able be cut by 10.3%. -- it will be cut by 10.3%.

the department does not have any flexibility. it is formulaic, you applied the cuts as is mandated by the law. what could happen if this goes into effect, the department could come back and say, we want to read program money between accounts and congress could give them the ability to do that. by default, they do not have the ability under the law. where it gets interesting is if you look in terms of outlays. outlays are important because that is when dod spends money. budget authority is when congress says this is how much money you have to spend. we're going to write contracts, awardees contracts, contractors will perform the work, and then we will pay them. when you pay them, it becomes an

adult life. that is what is important to industry. -- it becomes an outlay. that is what is important to industry. when you cut the budget authority, you'll see a reduction in and out to llay. this money goes directly to pay individuals. that money, the rate is very fast. payroll expenses are spent in the first year. more than 95% of military personnel budget authority becomes outlays in the first year.

you spend less than a quarter in your first year. it is a little higher in the second year and it gradually ramps down over the next three years. rdt &e funding, dod spends about half of that money in the first year. it gradually slopes down on the years that follow. this means the reduction in outlays from sequestration will not be uniform across all of these accounts. the account spend the money at different rates. i went through and did the analysis of what will be the reduction in terms of outlays. military personnel is 0% because sequestration does not affect military personnel accounts. the reduction and procurement will be 3.5% in the first year.

family housing, 6.9% reduction. actual dollar amounts, they are in the document we are releasing today. what does this mean? that means there is some question here for the defense industry. the weapons makers, people will make weapon systems, they depend on procurement funding. what this means is they will not see an immediate reduction, of 10%. they will see a much less reduction. there are also some defense contractors who perform maintenance and support services, that type of work is funded out of o &m money. it will take three or four years

before the 10% reduction in budget authority becomes a 10% reduction in outlays for contractors. >> [inaudible] >> three or four years. >> [inaudible] >> procurement. >> pact is an average? >> -- that is an average. >> it can vary from contract to contract, absolutely. there are all sorts of interesting things that would happen under sequestration. >> urinalysis is based on [inaudible] >> this -- your analysis is based on [inaudible] >> it is specific to fy13 funding. >> [inaudible]

>> when they come out with the budget request, they estimate based on their budgets what rate they think they will spend all the money. what i have done here is take that forecasted out the raid and i have backed out of it. if he cuts -- it could very if people change their behavior. contracting officers change their behavior. i am not sure if they will have the ability to do it, or the incentive to do it. what would be affected? do not get me wrong, everything in dod would be affected by sequestration. this is a clumsy, completely non-strategic approach to cutting the defense budget. this is not the policy. i do not think it was ever intended to be good policy.

contractors would see an immediate reduction in new contract awards, contract extensions, exercising of contract options. dod would likely have to go back to contractors and renegotiate their contractors to buy in smaller quantities. let me give you an example. we're planning to buy two virginia class submarines. if the budget authority for that year gets cut by 10.3%, they will not have the money toward those contracts. you cannot buy 1.8 subs, so what the duke? -- what do you do? you have to renegotiate your contractors. they gave you a price before that was dependent on building two subs. if you are only going to build one, the price will be higher.

>> [inaudible] the contracts are going to get all distorted. you were going to look at all contracts being renegotiated. >> it is a different beast altogether. sequestration could happen on top of the cr. a continuing resolution would do is freezes your funding at last year's level. if you have a program where you had planned to ramp up funding to go from building one sub 22 subs, you would not be able to do that. if you had a program where you had projected you wanted to ramp down production, you cannot ramp down either. you have to continue at the

previous year's rate. sequestration would happen on top of that. you would have to go back and renegotiate again. sequestration, a lot of things in dod can survive a continuing resolution. in fact, we are used to it. you can delay contract awards until after the cr has expired. or you can ask for an exemption from that. we have dealt with that in almost every single year since 1976, when they started the new budget process we have now. almost every single year, we have started the fiscal year on a continuing resolution. the department, it is not good, it slows things down, but the department can handle that. sequestration is different. it would create a much larger mess.

>> a larger mass on top of what is already -- >> you keep talking about the 10.3%. for fy13, the cuts would be closer to 14%. >> at the 10.3% is the reduction in budget authority for the year. by the time sequestration takes effect, you are a quarter of the way through the fiscal year. he'll have to apply that reduction in the remaining nine months of the year. the dollar amount, though, is 10.3% less than what it otherwise would have banned. back -- it would have been. >> [inaudible] >> right. in some accounts, that is very important. you are spending money very quickly. if he of all this messiness, it

happens, and you have to renegotiate all of these contracts. that would likely cause you to reconsider some of these programs in the future. sequestration, it will not directly terminate programs. making the unit cost go up, reducing the purchasing power across all the different acquisition programs, is going to is goingdod reconsider some of these programs. -- going to make dod reconsider some of these programs. i do not think people are aware of what this would do. dod civilian employees, nearly all of their funding becomes outlays in the first year. that means a reduction of 10.3%,

if you were going to reduce the amount of money spent on them, and the remaining nine months of the year, have to cut by 13.7%. we employ about 791,000 civilians. that means about 108,000 of them would have to be furloughed or laid off. that is a substantial impact. that would have been nearly immediately, within the days and weeks after sequestration occurs. dod would need to control these people. the longer they wait, the shorter amount of time they have to make of that 10.3% reduction. sequestration would slow down nearly everything else dod

dallas. military construction projects, training, peacetime operations, we would have to defer maintenance for things like ships, aircraft, you name it. a lot of things would be affected by sequestration. i think it is also important to note what would not be affected. there are people out there raising the rhetoric about sequestration. it is bad enough as it already is. you do not need to exaggerated. you do not need to use hyperbole. there would be no base closures as a result of sequestration. it is prohibited by the law. no actions taken by the president may result in a domestic base closure. you cannot close bases as a

result of sequestration. in the days of substantial size, you cannot close without explicit permission from congress anyway. no one in the active guard or reserve would get a pink slip. they would not be laid off or furloughed. that is because the president has already notified congress that he will exempt personnel accounts. there are reductions already planned in military industry. those would continue to go through. there would be no reductions in pay for military personnel. your basic pay comic your allowances, retirement, -- your basic pay, your allowances, retirement, not affected by sequestration. one notable exception, military health care, about 32 billion a

year is funded out of the o &m account. that is subject to sequestration. it would be cut by about $3 billion. what would that mean for dod? that is a good question to ask the department. i suspect if sequestration actually happened, i think they would come back to congress very quickly with a reprogramming request to restore the funding. they would have to take that $3 billion from somewhere else in the budget or congress would have to appropriated separately. there are a lot of ways that could happen. i do not know how that would play out exactly. the defense held program is subject to sequestration. >> -- the defense health program is subject to sequestration.

>> is there an annual cap? >> there is a section in the law that gives them a one time reprogramming request. they could come back with a $56 billion reprogramming request and move all that money around. it still requires congress to approve it, though. dod cannot do it on their own. the president cannot do it on his own. >> it does not go through all of congress? >> i need to go back to the law. i can get back to one that. >> that would be the way to resolve the dilemma. >> in my reprogramming request, i will put money back into the sub program. but then i will have to cut it from someone else.

that requires identifying winners and losers. that means some people, districts, are affected more than others. that is a difficult thing to do. that is a strategic thing to do, to go back and seriously reprivatized -- we prioritize what you are doing with your budget. it is by no means certain they would be able to do that. >> [inaudible] >> is a one-time thing. they have their normal reprogramming process they can continue to do, but there are limits to that. that goes to the defense committees. >> that is not someone else? >> that is in the bca.

no immediate program terminations directly because of sequestration. finding that has already been obligated does not affected by sequestration. if you are a defense contractor, sequestration happens on january 2, on january 3, all defense contractors will be working on contractors were funding has already been obligated. what sequestration a facts is the ability of the department to obligate new funding. >> is there actually -- does it turn out to be a good news story in the short term? >> if congress doesn't enact the cr -- if congress doesn't enact

debt -- does enact the cr, the current level of the base defense budget for 2012 is $535 billion. it is about $5 billion more than in is the request. when it comes time for sequestration to hit, you just get cut by $5 billion more. >> [inaudible] >> you calculate the amount of the cuts. whatever the difference is, let me go back to that slide. the cap will not change. it will be $491 billion for total national defense. dod is 95% of that. if it is $5 billion more.

the cap is hard. >> one of the things that lockheed ceo has warned about is the potential for this nightmare chain reaction of chargebacks for all the big time defense contractors to say, the budget has changed x %. you owe less more under our agreement because you have changed our contract. our agreement now has changed by this amount. have you calculated the potential consequences as part of your analysis? is that a big shadow that could be on the other side of this thing? >> that is very true. that would be part of the process of renegotiating contracts. unit cost would go up as a result of that. it starts down at the subcontractor level and it

would cripple its way all the way up to the prime contractor level -- it would cripple its way all the way up to the prime contractor level. you can buy less with the money you have. the $10 billion you plan to spend on the joint strike fighter, when that gets cut by 10%, you have $9 billion. you are not cutting the number of aircraft by 10%, to work cutting it more by 10%. he will not know the exact amount of that until it happens. there is a lot of uncertainty. especially when you get down to the second tier and third tier level. >> for those people below the primes, they could be looking at losses at that point. if the feds have a hard ceiling about how much they could spend and they cannot make up the differences, they will just be

out of luck. >> they would just have to pass those costs on. it would be a reduction in buying power. that would be the end result. whatever we did they were >> when you reopen these contracts, they may have these runs they may stick into the renegotiated contract. they were the only vendors that could produce that weapon system. d.o.d. is not in a good negotiating position. they will have to suck up whenever cost the contractors give them. the cost has gone up to $120. i cannot just by 10% fewer.

that will post its way up to the prime contractor. >> your analysis of the impact supports the labor department's statement that contractors are not obligated to tell the body they may not have a job. >> i cannot say if their interpretation is true or not. you would need to ask an attorney to read the law to see what applies. the outlays for performance will not drop 14%. outlays for procurement will not happen immediately. there is delayed affect. the people in the defense industry know this. when they tell you that their labor force will have to be reduced by 10% because of sequestration, it is true.

it just does not happen january 2012in january 2013 -- january 2013. >> can you lay out how sequestration can layout for the f35. what he has raised some alarms about what impact it could -- lockheed has race some alarms about what impact it could have. i am curious to know how it plays out. they have been stretching it out for a long time. how will this play out? >> it will be disruptive for a program like that. it has faced numerous delays over the past several years. has budget repquest

been slipped into the future. they have reduced quantities. programs like that may already be at the breaking point in terms of how you can stretch the without breaking them. that is at the aircraft and component level. they have a test program. it is for the whole aircraft. that is dependent upon having an left -- enough test programming. this has to happen in series. it is the kind of thing if you take money out of it, things cannot happen in the order they are supposed to happen. >> is it just that f35? they have a mass of programming that they can organize and adjust to have a take those

reductions. they could emphasize the testing and not emphasize other parts. >> the f35 is different from other d.o.d. programs. it is multi service. you have an air force procurement budget and a navy procurement. it is at which level the congress appropriates the money. they cannot move money without permission of congress. try to penn 0.3% and budget authority would be on the air force project to try to penpoint -- to try to penpoint budget authority would be to the air force. they have some ability to say if we have 10% less funding this year to spend on our research and development part, how do we

do that? how do we slow this down? how do we arrange the test schedule? how do we optimize with in the resurgence -- resources we have? this would slip the program again. with the unit cost going up, forget how many aircraft you plan to buy. in fiscal year 2013, how many did we plan to buy? 29. it would not just be a cut of 10% of that. >> all of the bills have 29. >> cut that not just by 10%. you have to go back to lockheed and say we negotiated a contract in the past that said we would buy at a certain rate.

we cannot buy at that rate. they have a fixed overhead. i happen to the factory. if you are buying 10% fewer production items in a year, their overhead cost are the same. your cost per aircraft will increase. >> a lot of the contractors complain about their procurement being hit disproportionately. you hear people say there is a big difference among programs -- there will be thousands of personnel involved in oversight of a program as large as the f35 program. have you given any thought to

how would the last thing effect ultimately lead to a more a efficient pentagon? could it reduced the bureaucracy in the pentagon? >> it depends to the cut. >> do you know how these of the workforce breaks down? >> i do not have the numbers on who does what in the civilian work force. some of from to maintenance. some of them do infrastructure support, like mowing the grass. some do administrative jobs. if you have to cut 100,000 of these people, some of them you could just cut the jobs and do less work. some of them he would be cutting from job functions that need to be done by someone else at that point. you do not have extra money to hire contractors to do it.

what will you do? you will have to reshuffle of monks people in the civilian work force and bring in the uniformed military since they are not being cut under the sequestration. the military may be doing some job functions that d.o.d. civilians used to do. it could mean reduced oversight for some programs. in the past, the dot has made a priority of building up the acquisition -- the d.o.d. has made a priority of building of the acquisition. this has hit them as well. maybe they would both people round, change job assignments. that should be part of their sequestration planning. >> is there anything that would prevent them from laying off people, but may be cut hours?

>> for some jobs, they could do that. the 791,000 number is number of full-time equivalents. that is about how much they would have to reduce their fte's. some of you have been getting 40 hours a week. now you are getting 30 or 20. if you are the individual, that is a cut. you will feel that in your pocketbook. maybe it is not as bad as losing your job entirely, but it is still bad. >> they are not discussing any of this planning. have you talk to anyone inside? >> i have talked to a controller who has testified before congress who said they are not planning sequestration.

it would be wise to start planning. we are 130 days away from sequestration when it would go into affect. he has been more than a year since the act has been passed -- it has been more than a year since the act has been passed. i would not write it off as if it will not occur. i do not think they are writing it off. there is a reluctance to plan for it because if you to start planning, the real planning they could do -- the reduction is the uniform percentage in budget authority across the accounts. they cannot change that. they can work on a reprogramming package. if you make us cut that 56 billion, we went to reallocate it across different accounts because we went to protect some high priority items. they could start doing that

planning. that would be smart. the downside to do that kind of planning and to let people know publicly that they are doing it is one to show people that there are higher priority items in your budget, the low priority items become a target. they are likely to get cut. that is the downside risk and why they are not showing their hand. >> what if congress comes back s the law?e the la how bad is that? can things be reversed? >> it can be reversed. if they restore the funding before the end of the fiscal

year, the fis would not be as dramatic. the longer you wait, the more d.o.d. will have to delay or exercise contract options. you open up a can of worms. the longer you delay it, though more warm to open up out of the can. it is not an all or nothing on january 2. this is not like a government shutdown where all of the affects our immediate. the defects will be more gradual. the real exception is d.o.d. civilian posts now -- personnel. if congress comes back in april with a new administration and they say, we have a different deal. we will restore that d.o.d. funding, it is not too late. they can still do that. d.o.d. would have time to recover and award contracts like

they had planned. >> will the contract be renegotiated toward the end of the fiscal year? will they push that off or address at the plant? >> you have to ask d.o.d.. that part of what i think they should be planning for right now -- what are the ones where they will wait? the closer you get to the end of the fiscal year, the more they will have to do. >> we have had a sequestration before. it was at the end of the 1990's. how were these contracts renegotiated? was it catastrophic? >> it is not helpful because the ones we had thought then were smaller. the largest one that i am aware of was in fiscal year 1986.

that was after they passed gramm-rudman hollins. it is a little different because the magnitude of the cut is smaller. they knew it when they passed it they would do with. >> do you have the same dilemmas where people are purchasing hardware and you have to renegotiate the cost? >> we do but to a smaller extent. a -- wasn't that difficult it was not that difficult to do at the time. >> it was difficult. i was quite young at the time. i cannot tell you firsthand. in the early 1990's. , were small.tion's it was less than 1%. you can handle that by sending someone home for a day.

>> did they find out then that the money -- they spend more money on the renegotiation? when they had to redo these contracts, they ate up all of the savings. >> it does not eat up the savings. it reduces your producing -- purchasing power. if you are going to buy 40 or 50 subs, if you are buying them as a last cost-effective production rate, it will cost you more in the long run. you'll save the money up front. it caps the amount of money you can appropriate. it is near term savings with a long-term consequence. >> it is true of any defense spending reduction. congress cut the amount of

expenditures before all this happened -- a change of the unit costs. >> it is not in the defense expense reduction. it is an unplanned reduction. if you went into this and said, the defense budget will be 10% less a share, let's work up a budget that is 10% less. you could avoid a lot of these costs. if this program is a high priority, i will maintain the production rate. i would not have to renegotiate the contract. i might kill another program. there is some cost with that, a contract termination fees. you pay it. it is small. you could make targeted cuts like that and he would not incur all of these extra expenses in the long run of regression contracts -- and finishing contracts.

>> we will take this down to the 491 level. could they still get sequestration? >> that is a technicality in the law. in the first year, it is a penalty sequester. it will not happen this way. it could. if you appropriate less money than is currently requested, at the $491 billion level for a total of national defence, you get hit with a sequestered of 54.7 billion. it only works that way the first year. it is a penalty sequestered because the supercommittee fails. in the future years, you have this budget cap. it is still reduced. it is a slightly different level.

it grows with inflation. that is different because it does not have to be a sequester. if you come in with a budget request that fits within the cap, no sequestration. you do not have uniform cuts. you could target the cut yourself. you have to have a budget. congress has to appropriate a budget that fits within that cap. fiscal year 2013, you'll get a sequester. it will cut you even if you cut your own budget. there is no incentive for anyone to cut the budget preemptively because you get caught again. -- get cut again. >> most of the reductions in the bca are projections to projected growth. before the sequestration would

occur, what have we seen in terms of a real cut in the defense department? everyone speaks as if this is a catastrophic event. it is all reductions to projected growth. there may be some real cuts. have you broken that down? >> i have some of that analysis in the report. if you look at total defense spending including were funding, it is coming down quickly because we are out of iraq. you are seeing a reduction in defense spending in defense outlays. the reduction of war funding will happen as we drawdown in afghanistan. in the base defense budget, 2010 was the peak in the budget. it has declined since then in real terms.

the fiscal year 2013 request is about 2.3% less than the appropriated amounts in the fourth 2012. that is in real terms. we are seeing a 2.3 production -- 2.3% reduction. if you look at the projection over the coming years, it is flat. it goes slightly higher than inflation, .o1% over the next five years. do not to read too much into those. >> these are the obama and ministration's budget request. -- these are the obama administration's budget request. it projected flat at the same peak level of defense spending.

fiscal year 2011 came up. the fourth 2012 went down. it is flat for the production -- it is flat for the protection in the future. the reagan administration was projecting growth in defense spending all the way through the end of the administration although the budget kept coming down. the start of that drawdown from fiscal year 1985 until 1986 was sequestration. >> sequestration can affect all of the federal agencies. can you give us insight how it will play out for the other agencies? there are significant differences because the pentagon buys that.

they have to pay people. >> i have not looked at that for other people. if their expenses are primarily paying people payroll expenses, then the outplay rate would be much faster and initially. they would see greater reductions. the way the cut works -- because the supercommittee fails, you take the 1.2 trillion in deficit reduction they were supposed to find over the coming years, divided in half. half comes from national defence and the other from non-defense. /nine. -- divid it by nine. you will save in interest savings. if he's been less of that time, you have borrowed less. you pay less in interest. you end up with 54.7 billion per

year that has to come out of national defence and 54.7 billion that has to come out of nine defense. -- on defense. it is not just out of discretionary nondefense. some of it comes out of medicare. i do not know how the formula works out over there. it is over nine years. it is equal cuts over nine years. >> the pentagon has committed to cut over 10 years. >> that was relative to projected growth. that took out all projected growth and reduce the budget by 2.3% this year and kept it fought for the rest of the decade. that is where they get the 487 million. -- billion. >> if sequestration goes through

and the commission comes through in january, he talked about working through the senate. you can have it retroactively applied in january. withhere any weird snahsgs that sendero? >> congress can make their own roles. they can make it back -- they can make it go back like it never happened. a few weeks after sequestration has taken a fact, it is very quickly after the fact that they are able to push something through congress. it is difficult to do if you have a divided congress. they can and do a lot of that before they have done much. the d.o.d. does not move quickly on renegotiating contracts.

they may have notified contractors and started dialogue with them. the d.o.d. civilians may have been furloughed by then. you have to see how quickly they do that. in a down a company -- in a down economy, i doubt people have found new jobs. that would be a difficult thing to do if you have a divided congress. that is why i think you have to start sequestration more seriously. look at the polling results. after this election, we are likely to still have a divided congress. it still matters how much a majority you have in each house whether you can push this through. whether or not q happens, it has little to do -- whether or not sequestration happens, it has

the tutu with defense. -- to do with defense. we can talk about the real effects of sequestration. that is not what will turn this debate. if that were to change the outcome, it would have done it already. this debate is about taxes and entitlements. what kind of compromise congress can reach on that. >> would use the fuel costs getting into this? -- where do you see fuels costs getting into this? how did you see this working out under sequestration? what happens to these efforts to bring that under control? >> we spend about $15 billion in the defense budget on fuel. it is through o &m accounts.

fuel is not discretionary. for the war effort in afghanistan, they will get what they need. it will prioritize ongoing military operations. the vast majority of it is for peacetime military operations. the air force is the largest fuel consumer in the federal government. you'll see a cut back on things like flying hours for airplanes. cutbacks on steaming days for ships. people would do less if they have less fuel. there will be less training. readiness could be degraded by some amount if we do not do the training currently planned. >> if you cannot go training, the son save money in other

ways? >> you put less wear and tear on the equipment. that helps you on the maintenance side. this will be our last question. >> ppa's has some level of flexibility. can you give insight about what sort of planning d.o.d. should be doing to ensure the best flexibility of those? >> you are kind of limited in what your budget line items are. the way the congress appropriates the money. some of those budget line items have multiple budget lines to fund that program. your flexibility is a limited within each of those funding

lines. that makes it restrictive in the program. there are other budget lines were you go down to the program element level. some of them funded multiple development efforts under one program element. you have flexibility with in that program element. on how you allocate the cuts. if you have three different element activities, you could cut one of them or put all of the cuts on that one development effort. it goes down to that program product activity level. o and m accounts tend to be much larger. when you have a much larger accounts, at the budget line item level, to have more flexibility.