the problem is we don't need that very much. host: a democratic column in chicago. caller: i need some information about scholarship availability for american indians. my granddaughter is an american indian out of wisconsin. she is in college and she could use some help paying her bills for college. is there a number you can give me or she can speak to someone about scholarships available? host: jefferson keel? guest: the office of the national congress for american indians, 202-466-7767. some will be able to get the

information she needs. you can contact the tribe directly and find out what your eligibility is in terms of citizenship and whether or not that tribe -- every tribe has its own laws and regulations and how they operate those scholarship opportunities. host: ncai.org is the website to look for information. works with native americans, is that right? caller: yes. i am a citizen working in the nine states representing companies. one of our clients is a manufacturer of renewable -- the utility and it has been a

successful experience. we brought something to the occasion some companies may not be thinking about. our proactive approach, we tithe with the community college. some universities are credited in the high-tech energy sector and built an education bridge that will have an exchange program between the native americans and german universities. many of the foreign companies -- they do not have to take advantage of a lot of the advantages in manufacturing on native american land.

i would like to lay out a strategy about how we can bring it to the attention of the thousands of european companies, to work with native american tribes. guest: thank you very much. that is encouraging. i want to hear more about that project. it talks about building a bridge of knowledge. that is something that is exciting and some that we need. i would encourage you to contact us and you can contact me. i would be glad to visit with you and figure out how we can get together at some point. host: ncai.org. jefferson keel, thank you for talking with our viewers. that does it for today. join us tomorrow for more debate

over public policy. your phone calls and your facebook comments. thank you for watching. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> here on c-span we're live at the chamber of commerce in wash d.c., coming up at 10:30. discussion getting underway about 10:30 or so.

at the white house at 10:45, president obama will make a statement. he is expected to call on congress to take action to avoid sequestration. you can watch that live on our website, c-span.org. we'll have it for you after the discussion at the chamber of commerce later this morning. conversation from this morning's "washington journal" on the president's state of the union proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9 an hour. host: and we're back.

guest: it is lower than it has been in decades even though it was raised in 2007. can you explain how that would work? guest: it would go to $9 an hour. host: 11 this last time it was adjusted. it doesn't cost the government anything to do it.

this is a cheap way to do it for the government. this is do not like this. big businesses do not like that. host: the last time it was raised was in 2007. why hasn't it been raised since then? guest: a general sense in washington. to do not want to interfere with the workplace. if you raise the minimum wage, there is concern you raise unemployment. the economic analysis of that is complicated. there is a general sense to remain hands-off. i think business has been successful in pointing out that this is hard for them. host: states have been acting on their own. according to politico, here are the states with the highest minimum wages. washington state, $9.19.

oregon, $8.95. host: all higher than the federal minimum wage. why and when did they make these decisions? guest: a lot of states have moved since 2007. a lot of cities have minimum wages that are a lot higher, often because the cost of living is a lot higher. but yes, states have acted unilaterally. they have looked at their industries and they have worked to do it to help low-income families. again, raising the minimum wage is mostly helping low- income families. teens, seniors, and others. host: the states with the lowest minimum wage, alabama, mississippi, tennessee -- they have no minimum wage. wyoming and georgia, $5.15.

host: what do you make of those states? some southern states have no minimum wage. guest: i think the thing to remember is that those tend to be low-cost states to live in. that is probably part of this. they also tend to be states with high unemployment rates. generally, they tend to be more conservative. the politics of this is not easy. republicans have tended to resist minimum wage hikes and democrats have. the policy tends to get a bit complicated. host: what do of economists say that are for increasing the minimum wage? guest: economists say you're raising the minimum wage about as much as they are talking about, what happens is that workers' wages absolutely increase. there's probably some employment effect for some

businesses. you make it more expensive for each business to have a worker. the issue is that a lot of times low-wage jobs, there is a lot of churn. you have to replace workers -- workers quickly. what this does is that it actually -- because it makes workers higher cost, it reduces some friction. workers tend to stay around a little bit longer. the cost of training that goes down. it is not totally clear that it increases the cost for businesses. it is not clear that it raises the unemployment rate. the head of the council of economic advisers at the white house right now is an economist named alan krueger, and he has done a lot of the work on this. he shows that not raising -- raising the minimum wage does not necessarily raise unemployment. host: what are some arguments for those against raising the minimum wage? guest: other economists find that it does not help the party right.

-- the poverty rate. some economists have found that it does in fact raising unemployment by making workers more expensive. on the business side, business is really do not like it. there are some businesses that have supported raising the minimum wage for idiosyncratic reasons, but as a general point, they resisted. i think a lot of them feel like it is a federal intrusion. host: have the businesses been raising the minimum wage on their own for their own employees? guest: as a general point, the type of worker who is working for the minimum wage tends to not have a lot of training and tends to be in a relatively low -- low skilled profession. the issue is that workers and very often -- workplaces are not investing in those workers. they are treating them, -- they are not training them, sometimes there are climbing the

career ladder, they are there to do this low-wage work. that is kind of the issue with raising the minimum wage, you're asking a business, you pay that worker more, but it is not clear you're getting more of them. host: a few tweets -- host: is it? what about the current situation and the recovery we are supposedly having? guest: it is the site -- divisive. some economists feel because the recovery has been slow and unemployment is high, you do not want to make it more expensive for businesses to hire a worker. and the other hand, workers share of an income, as a share of total national income, is that a 50-year low. that is a real problem that the obama administration would like to address. it is very hard to. this is one way to make sure that low income workers are getting a living wage. host: on twitter --

guest: this is a very prevalent argument. if you are a big corporation, you probably have more resources invested in making sure that your staff up -- you are staffed up. workers' wages are a smaller part of your overall expenditures. host: we will go to kansas, an independent scholar. -- caller. caller: i support raising the minimum wage. i think it has to be around $9.50. kansas has an extremely low minimum wage here. i find that people are competing with illegal aliens

here. i think that might lessen the competition -- if get a higher minimum wage, and people begin to realize they can hire americans, they will have to essentially if they get an immigration law passed. i also support a law or a youth wage, because i think teenagers have release suffered -- a lower youth wage, because i think teenagers have really suffered. i think some folks, instead of working at 2.5 jobs or three jobs, if minimum wage was raised, they might cut back to two jobs or just a job and a part-time job, because you cannot make it on one job out here anymore at all. there are a lot of folks out here that are middle-aged that are working in service jobs and in menial work, just try to make ends work -- and meet. -- ends meet. thank you. guest: i think these are good

points to make. during the recovery, payroll employment has been in low-wage jobs. another good point you made is that teenagers are suffering from high rates of unemployment, young workers are suffering from high rates of unemployment, and that is a real problem. we need -- it could help ameliorate some issues low income families are facing. host: is that what the administration was trying to do, reach out to young americans? guest: teenagers who have these low-wage jobs with absolutely benefit. this is aimed at working families. if you have two parents who are working close to the minimum wage or at the minimum wage, this will help them. the white house is arguing that it would bring a lot of those families above the poverty line. host: they also talked about raising income inequality -- erasing income inequality with the minimum wage.

guest: 10-20% of the rise of income inequality we have seen since the 1980's has been because of the minimum wage. they think this will reverse that almost entirely. the 10-20% of increase in an account -- in income inequality the 1920's measures, would go away. i know it is complicated. it is hard to say exactly what is driving the income inequality. there are a lot of big trends about a return to capital, -- return on capital, vs. the return on labour. --labor. host: on twitter -- guest: economists would say now. -- no. you're still not making a very much money per year if you're making the minimum wage. as folks know, a lot of these workers work more than one job because of that. it is a step in the right

direction. the white house argues that the your is it to $9 an hour, then a family of four with two earners would come above the poverty line. host: jason in wisconsin, democratic caller. hi. caller: i think it definitely needs to be raised. if you had politicians making the minimum wage, they would not be able to survive either. we need to do something for people that have a minimum wage jobs. it should be above $9.50. that is my opinion. host: do you know what it is in wisconsin? caller: i believe it is $7 something in wisconsin. i have not made minimum wage for a while. caller: i have not made a minimum wage for a while but it needs to be raised. host: you make less than that? caller: i make more than that. host: ok.

what did you hear? guest: president obama proposed raising the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour. this is lower than that. that has led some progressives to say we should raise it hire. maybe this could get through congress. there is going to be a real fight. i am not sure this will be winnable for the white house. host: scott in texas. caller: good morning. to each according to his need. the idea that the government would set a minimum wage when the cost of living in new york and san francisco is so much say, rural mississippi or oklahoma. how can you justify a

government with that kind of power? it is a marxist idea from its inception. there is no way the government should get between the employer and the employee. you keep calling them workers. i know where you are coming from. the minimum wage should be abolished. it's to never have been a part of the american fabric -- it should never have been a part of the american fabric. $9.25 is a good idea. is that what they are proposing? for the federal? guest: $9.00. caller: $15 would be better. hour.just go to $50 an host: i believe you assume it should be the same on the state level? caller: absolutely.

caller: you are telling that employee he cannot work for anything less than that. and especially these young gang members in the inner city. would you rather have remarking sweeping the streets instead of out thugging on people? would not be a better idea -- wouldn't that be a better idea? guest: a broad group of having a minimum wage think it is a good idea. the last, it was raised in happened on a bipartisan basis. speaker boehner did not support raising the minimum wage. but president bush signed that and a came into law. there is something to the idea that people bristle coming in

between an employer and employee even though there are lots of ways the government does that. economists differ on raising the minimum wage. the moderate increase they're proposing to $9 an hour. a lot of states would not get hit by that because their minimum wages are already higher. host: what is it in new york city or the big cities, the cost of living is higher? guest: san francisco has a higher minimum wage and the same thing with new york but i do not know the exact numbers. it goes district by district, city by city. host: you mentioned $7.25, where it is right now. what would it be if it kept up with inflation? guest: it reached its highest level in the 1960's and 197o's

0's, and would have been something like $10 in today's dollars. it has never gone back to those heights, adjusting for inflation. host: we have this on twitter from moses. hi, jerry. columbus, ohio. caller: good morning. i meant 80 something year-old man -- i am an 80-something year-old man. i work for 15 cents an hour and tips 70 years ago. the stock markets are almost 14,000 and these millionaires and billionaires are getting richer and richer and they don't give a darn. it was unjust karl marx that -- it was not just carl marks that

-- karl marx that talked about the working man. fdr put the minimum-wage in. there are people living in the 1890's. i'm all for a living wage. there are two countries in europe that have that and they are not marxist. the netherlands and switzerland -- switzerland has not been in a war in thousands of years. i will take the answer off the air. what percentage of people seniors or over 18 that are working for the minimum wage? i heard a woman who said 1%-2% and i heard 18%. and i've heard higher than that . i do not know. bring me up to speed. thank you for c-span.

guest: he brings up some good points and once the white house is hoping to address by raising the minimum wage. you have low wage workers whose wages have not been increasing. even during the economic expansion that preceded the recession. this has been hard on families. it is difficult to enter the -- to answer the question about what washington should do about that. this is a way to say we're taking 15 million workers and by force we are raising their wages. it gets more complicated when you do with families in the middle class who are seeing some wage stagnation. to enter the technical question, it would be about the proportion of workers to be affected, it would be about 15 million workers by 2015. there would be some effects froor other low-wage workers.

i'm not sure about the precise proportion of seniors. host: how do economists look at a working wage. guest: it often goes depending on the cost of living in the area you are. it is looking at how much would it cost to cover basic necessities and a small amount of savings? it is a subjective measure. host: we have this on twitter from headhunter. bob in illinois. republican caller. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i appreciate this opportunity. i put thousands of dollars per month in the local economy by my --buying my parts.

every person who works on my product is going to raise the price of my product. every hand that touches the unit that i sell, a certain percentage of the company buys --country buys this product. every time i go to a vendor to get a part, my costs will increase. my competitor works in china. my competitor build a similar part for almost a third of what i am an american. you will take away the factory workers who manufacture my parts. this is all usa jobs. last point. instead of raising the minimum

wage, lower the price of gas. back to two bucks a gallon and you won't have to worry about the minimum wage. i appreciate the opportunity. thank you so much. host: how would an economist pre-minimum wage respond to that caller? guest: you are raising the cost of that worker to that business. on the other hand, that worker will have more money to spend. as a business owner, you can make more profits. you can pass the cost to people who are buying your goods by raising prices. i think that is a little bit of what you got tat. raising the minimum wage has an effect on the economy. the question -- if there is a chance it would raise unemployment or perhaps put a

business in the red. host: michelle, tacoma, washington. democratic caller. caller: i just realized our state is one of the higher states with minimum wages. the problem with it it, even at $9 an hour, it is hard to survive on that in the state of washington. an average apartment will cost about $900. that person cannot pay that off of $9 an hour. the price of survival. i mean, you have to look at the person who is making the money for the business. without the worker, you have no business. with respect to the worker, it

is difficult even with two incomes to survive in the state. if you get a gallon of gas, it is costing $4- $5 and you have a commute. prices have raised but not our income. it makes it hard on any family. unemployment is much higher now than it was when the minimum wage was lower. i'm for raising the minimum wage. host: we got your point. guest: she raises a good point. it has been that higher educated workers have done pretty well. you have done ok in this economy if you have a college degree. even throughout the recession.

low wage employees have gotten hit. there was a dramatic increase in the near poor. those are families earning wages but not having investment earnings and things have gotten tougher them. this is tackling that portion of the population. the economy has been poor. hard. economy has gone up hartn host: we are talking with annie lowrey about the minimum wage. the president like to raise the minimum-wage to $9 an hour. the president will hold a news conference this morning to talk about sequestration. >> you can watch this on our very library at c-span.org.

margaret spellings business and higher education institutions can engage with one another better in an effort to move students into jobs. >> that is why you are here. business leaders and students are critical stakeholders in this demand side for change in higher ed, and often the there are adequately presented at the table as policy debates go on. we need to start those conversations and invigorates them about how to make higher education more accessible, more affordable, and that degrees earned our labor market value. we, at the chamber, at the competitive work force, are so pleased to have the opportunity to work with the young principles. i love that name.

you guys are powerful advocates for renewal of higher education in this country and we are thrilled to be partners with you. america's colleges, as we know, and many of us have enjoyed our experiences there, have long been the envy of the world by bringing new thinking and creativity to bear on the challenges that we face. i want to extend a special welcome this morning to the students that have traveled near and far to join in this important discussion. as you know, we are at a critical time in higher ed. we need to educate more students to higher levels than ever before. we have done a pretty good job with educating, but that is not of your call to do now. we have made major strides in improving access, but the focus is now increasingly on

competition and completion and the president rightly spoke to this issue in the state of the union last week. we need many more degrees to meet the president's goal of 8 million more degree holders by 2020. that need better access, affordability, and completion rates, but it also mean better quality, not just quantity. we do not want more degrees for that reason only, but degrees that indicate knowledge and skills and labor market value. there is a great deal of potential for cultivating relationships to make sure employers and students get what they need from our colleges and universities. we need strategy's informed by real data about where the jobs are and what skills and credentials those jobs require. centers are being the effort to make more information available on higher education and we applaud their efforts knowing that better information will

lead to better decision making. we must also increase innovation and change so that higher ed the to deliver theive skills that students need. technology is a part of your lives like no other generation before you. you need customized, relevant education options, and we need to deliver. we need to embrace new ways of doing business and have the intellect and ideals of every business sector to do it. my look around the room at the faces of our nation's future leaders, i am encouraged by your engagement on this dialogue. it is important not just for you and our institutions, but for our country and economy and civic dialogue, including national security and our competitiveness around the world. we owe it to the students in this room and around the world to face these challenges head on

with the urgency they rightfully deserve. so let's get back to work. with that, thank you for being part of this important conversation. i've will now ask my friend the icw president to come to the stage. sharyl? [applause] >> thank you, margaret. thank you all for being here today. i just want to say a couple of quick words about young i nvisibes. les. we are so thrilled to be partners with them. we've got to know them through a partnership with the gates foundation on redesigning federal financial aid. in the course of learning more incibles, weung incinv

understood that we had a lot of commonalities. students go to college, the economic evidence suggests the more education you have, the better you will do over the course of your life. i will go out on a limb here and say that most students go to college to get a better job. most employers want to hire students into those better jobs. in some cases, neither one is being satisfied right now in the current system. so we have two pretty powerful constituencies in employers and students, so if we can find a way to come together around issues and join forces, i think we can do powerful things. my real hope out of today is that, over the course of the conversation, we recognize a few

of those things that maybe we can work on. not to presupposed of composition will hold but there are a few things that will come to mind initially. one common data, as margaret suggested, such a powerful piece that is not where it should be, i guess, in terms of higher education currently. morrow, robust, and better data. something that students and employers really need in order to make better decisions. support for innovation in higher education. there are certainly new things happening every day that have the potential, i think, to impact affordability for students. also, shaking up how we look for higher education, how it is delivered, how we maybe focus on competencies' and skills, as opposed to the outcome of

whatever and the degree is. third, the issue of partnerships. there are a lot of great partnerships between business and higher education happening, but they are at talk across the country, and i do not know how many involve students as a real partner. some of the ones that come to mind, university of maryland, northrop grumman, dow chemical and their community college in midland, mich., working on the pipeline for the company, rolls royce and the university of virginia. they are definitely out there, but i think we need more -- they are everywhere, and we need more of them. we are grateful that you are here to have this conversation today. we really do hope to continue it and have some real focus coming out of this conversation. we thought it would be

interesting to start with a sense of what we have in the room here in terms of how people feel about certain issues that we will talk about today. this will help us from the conversation. you have got a little thing at your seat, a polling device. we will ask a series of questions. i will read the questions and the potential answers you can select. you will see the answers real- time so we will get a sense of who is in the audience and how we feel about a few things. we are going to get started with the first question which is, which category do you fit under? high school,ucation employee? you get a few seconds, and music.

ok. what is the primary function of higher education? a, to prepare students to be successful in their careers. curious to see the reaction.t ♪ they are both important. that is good. no. 3. on a scale of one to five, how would you rate the quality of information provided to students were making a choice in

selecting an institution of higher education? room for improvement are less than satisfactory. next, are college graduates worse thanpared foor they were 10 years ago?

not good. who needs to do more to keep college affordable? ♪ pressure on the institutions.

finally, and then we would get to our first panel discussion. is college still a good investment? ♪ great. thank you all for that exercise. it confirmed for me some of what i thought, but not necessarily in all the questions. i think that gives us a place to start off with this wonderful panel. i will call them all up and we will get going. thank you all so much. [applause]

>> all right, can people hear me? great. i am from the lumina foundation. i have been there for a month or so now. the issues that we talked about just this morning are relevant across all party lines, looking forward to a great discussion today about the interaction between higher education and the work force and with students and employers see as necessary elements of a competitive higher education system. i am joined by a great group of panelists.

we are going to jump into a discussion. i'm going to ask them some questions to get the ball rolling and then we will have time for audience questions. i am just going to do introduction down the line. right next to me, aaron starks, student body president of salt lake community college. next to him is jeremy johnson. next to him we have aaron smith, the co-founder of the young indian symbols -- invincibles. at the end, we have the senior director for education in the workforce, law and corporate affairs at microsoft corp. all of their biographical information, exactly what they do, is in your information, but

i want to start with a general question for the panelists. that is it really about partnerships. cheryl talked about some interesting partnerships between higher education and work force. i want to start by asking the panelists, based on your work, what do you believe our great elements of partnerships and cream higher education and business? -- and higher education and business? >> recently, we've partnered with our good friends in boeing in washington state, where we are headquartered, in redmond, washington, to create a stem scholarship program. we put money in, boeing is putting money in, the government is matching that money. we will have put $1 million on the table for scholarships in

washington state for folks who are going to major in stem disciplines and also come from families who are eligible for free and reduced lunches. the business community stepping up in concert with the government in washington state to develop what we think could be a model program around stem. that will get into where we talk about resources, where we direct resources, and which should be the appropriate role of business in concert with government. >> good morning. i would just like to add to my quick bio. beyond running my business, i have been on the state board of education in florida for about seven years, one of the top states in terms of leading reform. from a partnership perspective, higher ed engagement, it is important to have businesses at the table. in the state of florida we have

15 to 20 apprenticeship programs tied with community colleges, where businesses are engaged in the curriculum as well as hiring most of the graduates. everyone from gulf power, where they created alignment programs, and most of those jobs are $70,000-plus a year, partnerships with the disney co., all the stuff behind the scenes, and then in miami dade, several programs in culinary and arts and entertainment, as well as health care. all over the state of florida we have made an aggressive partnership plan, the specially at the community/college level where the businesses that are local, skill sets are not being taught at the community college, they can help come in and teach the curriculum, and

then the students can come into those businesses. we continue to invest in that program and expand upon that footprint. >> i agree with many of the points made. the exciting thing is there are actually many exciting examples of businesses, institutions of higher education working together to train young people from all different backgrounds to get jobs but the work force demands. the challenge has been and will continue to be to make sure that there is a real dialogue between businesses, and students need to understand the challenge that both sides are facing. sometimes young people leave school, they're looking for a job, they go into the work force, and they are surprised businesses want a certain skill set and they do not necessarily have that. or on the flip side, businesses need to understand the range of

challenges that students are facing to go to college, to afford it when we know it has become more expensive than before. in many cases, young people are working a full-time job and putting themselves through school. having that dialogue can foster more successful business- student-institution relationships. finally, we know there are models working. we need to figure out how to scale those up. we will all be talking about techniques that we can do to do that. >> much alike in traditional academia, where some exciting developments are taking place as a result of collaboration between different disciplines, are would argue -- and i am a little bias because this is what we do -- some of the most interesting developments in higher education are the result of collaboration between

businesses and higher education. the reason we are seeing things like that, higher education is uniquely well positioned to do things like maintaining academic rigor, teaching well, they have built practices, deep institutional knowledge, in some cases, over hundreds of years, that is typical for a business to rescue -- replicate, and in fort lee, with consistent, long- term integrity. on the other side, it is difficult for those institutions of higher education to do things like develop technology effectively to disseminate that information. it is difficult for them to come up with new ways to improve the logistics of the overall delivery of that academic experience. what we do as a company is partner with great, traditional universities to build out online academic experiences that have

the same student outcomes as on campus, but where the student can be anywhere in the world. i would say, over the past five years, we have seen come every year, huge increases in interest and development in this space, because of the potential to unlock one is great about these traditional institutions and expanding access to them. >> i want to begin by thanking everyone here at the u.s. chamber for hosting this event. i share many of the thoughts and feelings of the students in attendance. we are excited for the future of education. business leaders alone cannot do it. there are so many problems, taxation problems, and economical problems, that businesses alone cannot do it, but neither can students. so we are seeing a collaboration amongst different business entities, higher ed institutions. in the state of utah, we have

begun by diagnosing the problem, which i think is step one. we have come together with prominent business leaders in the state to form a coalition of business leaders referred to as prosperity 2020. that is one bridge within the u.s. chamber but also within the salt lake chamber. we are all seeking to solve the solution to come up with a solution that will promote economic developments. we have tried a band-aid approach. we know there needs to be long- term changes. the needs to be greater investment in education. i spoke with a student before i came on stage. he said there was a program in virginia similar to what we do in utah where business leaders are interjecting themselves into higher ed. first, promoting awareness that we cannot do this without business and business cannot do this without students. traditionally, we have relied on the legislature, but that is not

enough. i am grateful for the strides we are taking. in utah, we have a unique system where the students have come together to form the utah students association. each student in the state, 130,000-plus, pay 15 cents of their student fees, and that qualifies them to be a member of the student association. 15 cents allows them to be a part of the ut student association. each student body president comes together once a month in the work with political action committees, we work with the state legislature, we are working with businesses. the results have been astronomical. we are seeing more cdo's, more

business leaders, we are seeing the lieutenant governor of utah say we can work with students to make a difference. that has been the biggest accomplishment. again, only step one of the long process. >> it seems like everyone -- not surprisingly -- a need to work together between business and the higher education community. certainly, student activists standing with them. one thing that was mentioned earlier, one of the no. 1 reasons why students today may want to go to college is to get a better job. i was kind of postulated. we have our internal poll and you said, that and becoming better citizens was a dual goal. recently, there was a poll conducted across the nation to ask the main reason for going to college. 63% said to get a good job.

that is up from past years. increasingly, people are valuing this as a reason -- not the only reason -- but a key reason. i would go out on a limb and say, if they did that get a better job after, they might feel some way about that education. one of the things that has been talked about recently is this skill gap, what are the skills that are necessary? earlier, kathleen talked about the partnerships, getting out those skills and making clear what they are the people are looking for. so i want to ask, to get a better job, what are the skills that students are looking to get? are they technical, broader thinking skills? this is a conversation that you often have with businesses and higher education coming together. what are those skills that you're looking for in students, the skills that you see in your

collaboration that are necessary from these courses, and what this business consider necessary skills for success? >> to begin with, there are so many degrees offered that are not necessarily relevant to an occupation. i know in utah we have really focused on stem. a lot of major corporations in the country are looking for students coming out of college who are trained and well qualified in science, technology, engineering, and math. we have emphasized those degrees and are tried to provide additional incentives to students to study those degrees, so that way, they will become more viable to the economy and the state of utah. that is a trend that needs to continue throughout the country. it would be very helpful for students to understand, when they do choose a college or

university the, to know first and foremost that in order for me to go to this school, i need to specialize in this. by coming to this school, by specializing in the their science, technology, engineering, or math, i will be guaranteed a job and one of these corporations because they are part ring with one of these schools. goldman sachs, through the past year, have gone from institution to institution. i know cuyahoga community college, salt lake was named one of their 10 business partners. what a great opportunity to study finance or i.t. we now have a relationship with them. >> i think one of the areas that business can be most helpful to higher education is helping with things like market research to more effectively understand what students are looking for, what will ultimately have an impact, like being able to get a better

job. it is pretty clear in the distance world right now, if you are currently a developer, there are people bidding for your time for an interview. >> getting better dater for students around different areas that are currently and likely in the next couple of years to be very high-growth, high demand industries is something that collaborations between the business world and higher education can have a big impact on. it is difficult for the business world -- you can spread the information but you cannot act on it through traditional higher education unless you are partnered with them. for traditional higher education, you are not in the business of doing that kind of rocket research. -- market research.

.m i. is critical. many employers are looking for critical thinking skills and writing ability. even at young invincible's, we interview folks and talk to students and want to make sure they have that strong writing ability. a lot of employers syllabus i'm wearing -- feel the same way. i believe in learning by doing. it is hard to expect a 19-year- old to know what they want to do with their life. that is why we see young people trying different jobs and different schools. having as many opportunities as you can to try working with a business, different types of businesses is critical.

where we have been successful is when we give students many of those opportunities so when they do leave school, they have a clear sense of these are my strengths, weaknesses, the connections that i have, and this is the career i want to pursue. we can do a better job from the standpoint of given students -- giving students more experience in the workforce. we can start there. >> 85% of college seatings -- singers anticipate they will move home. in florida, i was a biochemistry

major. my first job was an elevator elevator operator. i learned a lot. if you do good at the first job you get, you get another job. there has to be some relative transitional understandings of what the skill sets are and how they will be applied. in florida, we have a florida council 100, the top 100 businesses in the state. we work with the florida chamber. we did a skills analysis on the business side. for every college in the state of florida this year, they have by degree the number of persons in that degree program what their jobs are and what their annual salaries are. by the end of 2014, we want to

educate both parents and graduating middle school and seniors in high school as to where the choices are based upon getting a job with the state- funded institutions. that will be the colleges, technical colleges, universities will have been online in florida. it is called smart choices. it will tell you how many are in the rn system at what schools, how long it took to graduate, and their average salaries to start. the florida business community engages the legislator and institutions to establish that. we are funding it. it is running. we have gotten strong feedback. i was at a florida state board of education meeting and the consent -- mackenzie gave a

presentation. the mckinsey report that is out talks about how students and employers have the same expectations about skill sets and jobs and what they need to do. the missing link is the solution -- the missing link is the institution. they teach us on how they have taught for the last 20 years. that is not working. the two drivers of change in that parallel path are the employers and students. we have to challenge the institutions to change therefore miller and their structure to be -- to change therefore miller to the adaptive to skill set and jobs that are out there. >> in microsoft today, we have roughly 6300 job openings, about 3600 of which are for computer scientists and

engineers. we start them at $104,000. with full benefit packages. we are not the only ones in washington state. look at expedia and amazon and other employers. we have the fourth most s.t.e .m. jobs in the country yet we m.ve the fourth least s.t.e. graduates of any state of the union. we need 120,000 computer science graduates per year. our court tech -- 40% of our quartet able are not engineers. look at what microsoft needs. it is a log of what competitors have talked about. i would add teambuilding skills.

we do everything by teams at microsoft. if you cannot work with theme -- within 18, you will not be -- if you cannot work within 18,, you will not be successful. look at what we are doing not only at the college level but in high schools and across the spectrum. we have nine states in the u.s. who look at computer sciences as a core degree in high school. for doing state take computer sciences and look at it like jim. we have 42,000 high schools in the u.s. 2100 teach ap computer science. if we do not look at our feeder network and what we are doing to bring more people in, to counsel them about the right choices, to let them know where the jobs are because once you are a senior in high school, it is too late. if you have not done the work,

because you have the ability to solve problems, we will continue to have these challenges. >> thank you. it sounds like there is a lot of definite areas where we have a gap in what we are producing in terms of our college graduates and what is needed in terms of our economy, especially in the s.t.e.m. there are skills that you cannot forget. they are not mutually exclusive. i hope that is still otherwise we will have technical people who do not know how to talk to you about what they are doing. the common thread is information. the type of information that students need to make good decisions about going to college, where the jobs are,

what majors may be useful, institutions giving you accurate information about what kind of jobs people get afterwards. is that the type of information we need? what other pieces of information do students need to make this a chew -- decision to get a good job? >> it began to, high school. -- it begins in high school. a large majority of students graduate high school and decided to which degree or occupation they want to pursue.

before students choose a college or university, it would be helpful to have in mind something they would like to study. college completion, utah is ranked six low was in the country. we are on college completion. the have a resolution going through the state legislature at we were like six to six percent of our population educated by the year 2020. students going to college or attended universities uninformed and lead uninformed. the past decade, but trend has been, get a degree and you will be taken care of. you will be able to provide for your family, but the recession ended in 2000 nine. economic recovery has been so slow that you are now looking at students who forgo their after getting -- academic career and go straight into

professional careers. the students come from professional careers and are working on their academic careers. it has reversed. the data would be beneficial. it would be nice for a student to say, i am thinking of going to the university of maryland. i will like to know what job placement is and what jobs i can get coming out if i study science. relevant information that needs to be more accessible early on to students. of one of the perks capitalism is a society that it tends to move in the direction of what people. it is safe to say that people want better information on student outcome. they want information on what the investment in themselves

will translate into after they graduate. i would argue that one of the less often discussed but well accepted truisms of higher education is in 15 years, half of the current institutions in this country will probably not be here. the other half are going to have to eat balls. they are going to have to do more of want them to do. people want them to get better at protecting student outcomes and get information on how they will change students lives. the question is what we can do to help schools better deliver information and care more about

being able to ensure their graduates are doing the things they want to do after they graduate and are successful. it will happen. what can we do to work with the universities and institutions that do care and do want to ev olve to allow them to create better opportunities and get better information on what those opportunities are for their students. >> the key policy question is, should the federal government subsidize everyone? should we start picking winners and losers in terms of where we put our bets on arrow student aid moving forward? we are spending $170 billion per year. what are the expectations for employers and society in terms of where those dollars are

being spent and what the federal government should subsidize and what taxpayers should subsidize? >> the federal government decision will be driven by -- if you empower students and their parents as data about where the graduates of those institutions and up, how long it takes him to find jobs, their salaries, that will reverberate to the public policy changes -- channel and you will have changes. colleges are supposed to be academic institutions for the benefit of students, not for the benefit of the institutions. that has been a big debate in higher ed. there has to be a retooling of what the purpose is and how do you judge someone against their success of that purpose. florida is the sunshine state. when it comes to public policy.

everything is in the open. public policy is all -- it is a data-driven state. from pre-k to 12, we have moved up in the nation in terms of reading and writing. we have put the data out there. the teachers, parents, principals, and kids are educated. we have seen dual enrollment increase in high school because it allows kids to make earlier choices in terms of what they would like to try to study. we have a two plus two system, which is you finished two years of a college and you are guaranteed to get into two years of a university in florida. we have driven our policy around what the system has demanded they saw on the data that is out there for both the students and the parents to have to make better decisions. that is what has driven the smart choices and where from a state perspective the state

invested dollars go and what has been the return on that from the last two or three years. that will be transformational in terms of both more people coming to florida schools and also florida kids making better decisions in middle school and high school. >> the data is so exciting because it is transformational. it seeks to the potential of the market and for consumers to make smart decisions and help to guide where our higher education and gave goes. it is reflective of a policy environment where there are financial -- finite resources and we are trying to identify ways the government can be helpful in creating change and helping to create smart consumers in a way that is financially sustainable. on the financial aid peace, the

status quo is not working right now for students and families. we have community colleges in this country where tuition has gone up 100% in the last two years. we only have about 1/.3 of our generation who actually graduates with a degree. many of us agree that is essential if our country will the competitive. i am not just talking about the traditional four-year degree. i am talking about community colleges, technical degrees, some form of of post secondary education that will prepare you. we need to make sure we continue to invest in young people in the same way that we built a strong public k-12 system in the country and did things like the g.i. bill which helped a whole generation of americans attend

school and lay the groundwork for economic success. it is critical that we continue to support students. i firmly believe we can do it in a smarter way and we need to think about reimagining how we look at financial aid. we put forth pacific -- pacific policy ideas on how to better align financially to the workforce and make things like pell grants which are a bedrock of our financial aid system strong and sustainable. any of the folks here also have ideas. there is an opportunity -- the adversity that we face in terms of the budget is an opportunity to think about our federal financial aid system, higher education reform, and put ideas on the table and get traction. this conversation could not have come at a better time

given the challenge we face and given where we need to go. >> it is remarkable that colleges and universities have not put more of an emphasis on this data from the beginning. it is sad that -- [applause] what wouldn't drive them to do that? if i am a student looking to prepare to have a family and provide for them, why would i go to a subpar community college and i could go to a university or another college facing 70% or more of their student population in the work world. >> most students do not have the chance to yet. we have seen the ability to make those selections based on 10 knowledge he. once you can choose to go somewhere for a similar price

around the country, you have colleges have real instances -- volve.ives to e students have been landlocked. the vast majority of students go 50 miles from their home. for the first time as a country, we are about to see if students can make those choices. >> you have seen the growth of the online university within the past 10 years. the has been a part of the reason federal student aid has gone up. one thing i want to add to this is you see adults going back. they more so than traditional students have a clear goal of why they are going back and it is because they want to get a

better job. there are some differences in what students are looking for but increasingly that option to go online because it is convenient. when you have more choices, essentially our financial system for higher education works like a voucher where you can take it wherever you want to go. for it to work, you have to have good information about what will serve you best, who has the best outcomes in terms of completion and basement. -- placement. that is not information that we have readily available. if you have questions, in 15 minutes, we will have audience questions. this notion that we should have those types of outcome data across the nation is something that i know has been talked

about in washington d.c. drill down on what it is and how we can get it. florida has been a model that many people have talked about as an exemplar in this area. the issue of costs --another thing that came out of the survey was that when you ask individuals who did not have a post secondary conditional -- the vast majority said yes. they say, i think this would be helpful to me. yes, and why? what are the barriers? the number one is family. family conflicts. i feel like i cannot work this into my life. the second is costs.

hey, i can major in this and get a great job. what are some of the solutions that we can help lower the cost burden. the survey asked if it is the institutional responsibility. the federal government plays a big role in subsidizing education with subsidies for loans. the students themselves pay the brunt of the cost. what can we do in this area of cost for higher education? >> it is important to add that there are a couple of ways that this could go. some of them -- the most aggressive cost-cutting would be to say, let's have everyone

take online courses. they have gained traction. once you get into the educational outcomes, and you to be careful to not paint too break an alliance from a legislative standpoint. what we could do is assume all skill sets can be built in the same way. there are many things that can be done there it effectively. some of them have to do with s .t.e.m. filedelds. some skills are difficult to do if you are not surrounded by students, professors who know who you are and can help you overcome those strengths. we have to be thoughtful about leveraging technology to reduce

costs while recognizing student outcomes really matter. there are some things you can teach dairy cost-effectively are asynchronous adaptive learning technologies and many things you cannot that require people. we need to not throw everything in one direction. it is a blended loading approach -- learning approach. a statistics class used to meet for 15 weeks. it now meets at weeks once a week. the kids have been moved into a teambuilding exercise where they have access to their instructor and online tools but they also have access to each other. it is driving solutions and driving down costs are 20% at carnegie mellon. when you talk to a university

president and ask him or her what does it cost to educate a student, they will have -- they will say how much do you have? what are the pedagogy is going forward? do we have to get more kids off of the five-year and six-your plans and have them finish in four years. this is a cooperative adventure -- venture where we look with different strategies and partnerships with students and the government. all of these pieces are linked. you have to look at it systematically. christ there needs to be truthful self awareness -- there needs to be truthful self awareness of the changes that need to be made. look at the year-over-year increases. if you are running a business

-- even the government does not go up that much. institutions go up 19% year- over-year if you go back 10 years ago. it is unconscionable if they think they can pass that cost on to students. the students get this debt and make it out and they are at the bottom of a pile trying to see how they will live. i find it unconscionable that institutions think they can get away with it. i am excited about competition. data-driven decision-making. if there is enough. pressure, every institution has to put out a to as to where their graduates, how long it takes him to get a job, their first job, and the pay. you will have a reawakening along with the online competition that the cost will be where they are today or go down. >> the comments made that the

data was not available. it is made available to high school students. i can find out what percent of their student body is going to college. we should have that data already accessible to students pertaining to what percentage rajoy and go on to get a job. -- graduate and go on to get a job. it needs to start at a young age. it is a twofold problem. you see the college life extended to eight years at a community college because students are not advised correctly. academic advisors are not going over course plans. the path is not clearly marked. by the time you finish eight years of college, you have spent thousands of dollars, but i have to transfer to a

university. that will cost several hundred dollars more because if i spent eight years at a community college, i do not know what university i want to go to. cost efficiency is critical. how easy are we making it on our students? it is $45 to just apply to one university. that does not mean i am in. the typical student will apply to three or four because they are landlocked. i've paid the price and books just to apply to schools. how easy is that for students? there are issues we need to focus on. cost efficiency and data are lacking in this discussion because they are necessary elements that have not been emphasized. >> we have had a good conversation. i will ask the audience if you have questions at this time, there are people with mike's that can fine you. we heard a lot about

institutional responsibility. it would be interesting to get institutions with questions for the panelists. >> i am the student body president at purdue university. we hear about life skills and how we can connect those two businesses. that is the issue we should be talking about. there are students that have the life skills that can be working for your businesses. that is where we need to talk about how we connect that data. communication, teamwork, leadership. those happen within student organizations, the co- curricular -- students who are developing leadership skills that make them good team players when they get involved in businesses. something that we are doing at purdue university is to find a way thao get that data to

businesses. employers want to find out what are your students learning outside of the classroom. what are their skills? what we will be working on an annex two years at purdue is coming up with a co-curricular transcript that shows what students are learning at the organizations and have advisors verify they have developed an indication skills or leadership -- communication skills are leadership skills. that is something we have seen in high demand from employers. that is our solution to filling the gap from students on campus to employers. employers will come to our campus. with 30,000 undergraduates, how do you find the right students? how do you evaluate all of the students? it is true that transcript --

it is through that transcript process. what are comments you may have about that? >> that is a good idea. >> you bring up an important thing to call out which is that this is an incredibly talented adoration of students. there are students that are incredibly smart, confident, that our tech saturday, entrepreneurial, and four varieties -- a variety of reasons, they are not getting connected to the businesses that want those skills. examples like at presume -- pur due are things we should look at to scale back up and bring that to other schools in a systematic way. it is important to recognize that there are ways to connect young people who do not necessarily go through the

traditional four-year track. some young people from a program called youth build, which helps young people to get a ged and to train them to -- and carpeting -- carpentry or it and connect them with local employers. there are all of these talented young people out there that we can do a better job connecting to, but the challenge is the scaling. there are things we can do through the institutional aid that we give that requires or strongly incentivizes schools to do more of those types of programs. >> we are looking for differentiators. what differentiates another student from another? they are all relatively doing well in classes. one would think that could be replicated elsewhere in terms of how you support students and

what they do beyond their classroom work. crac>> the connection between employers and universities to create work-study opportunities were externships -- are there examples or ways we can encourage more of that? my cousin goes to purdue. my sister went to georgia tech. for six months out of the year, she would work for exxon mobil. she got a job offer afterwards as an engineer with their planned. that model of working and learning, even for adult learners, some of the best workforce programs combined on the job training with education so you can understand how what you are learning in the classroom is relative to jobs. how can we encourage those partnerships? >> it is important.

we were talking about how the vast majority of traditional students have been landlocked around the physical location. that has other negative consequences, one of which is if you are on campus and have poor courses, it is difficult to do anything or a manifold -- for courses, it is difficult to do anything meaningful activities. frequently, most of people during college will do something but it will be an on- campus job that does not have -- they will work at a library or starbucks or do something that will allow them to do two hours here or there as opposed to something that may be the location they would like to pursue and give them a chance to connect with people. in november we are announced semester online.

it is a consortium of the top schools in the country. duke, emory, notre dame, great schools coming together to offer full credit online courses. the best courses at each of those schools but average only for their own students but then hopefully to a broader section of students who are able to perform well in those environments. you will see more things like that. it reduces the geographic restrictions by having different timings for those life classes. the life part is important. you are able to be a student at purdue and say, i want to take a summer course next semester and do an institute -- internship

and get to know this potential career path. i can engage in a way that allows an employer to get to know an student. you can make it much simpler to higher and more effective for students to figure out what they want to do, which you cannot do if you are landlocked to a specific area. >> that is a great point. >> i am with a professional service firm. a diverse skilled workforce is critical. there is a staggering number of students and community colleges who require remediation. when they get there, they do not have the basic math and writing skills. my question is -- what is the role of these colleges there?

state and local budgets are cuts. the students are no longer the traditional students. they may be the first in their family. the needs may be different. i would suggest that mentoring, that rolled the businesses play what the large workforce is to spend time with the students on campus with nonprofits that support the students. >> remedial math comes to mind when you speak about these issues. 60% of high school students coming out of utah going to universities having to take remedial math. the way that we have countered that is by developing a program called the math emporium. it takes you through your high school math in one semester online.

it is nice to be able to work from your job on a break or at home. increasing these efficiencies for students is second to none. we are seeing student excited about math. if they do not understand, they do not have to come into the classroom. they have an online tutorial. a virtual professional can work them through the -- walk them through the problem. they will have to come to the college to take a placement test to move them up and toward completion. ideas like that are taking off. going beyond that and taking the math emporium and allowing high school students to start on it would be the next step. promoting our college classes, ap classes at a high school level, too. how nice is it when you receive freshman with 30 credits?

>> the other trend that community colleges -- you are correct with our nontraditional students and whether they can benefit from a block calendar where they get all of their courses done an excellent bar of -- in x numbers of hours. 10 years ago, community colleges issued 30,000 industry recognized certifications. last year, they did almost 700,000. where community colleges are stepping into the role is for the nontraditional student, for someone who needs to put food on the table right away, who cannot wait to years, and come out with a credential and three to six months. that leads to a portable job credentials where that people

can be in seattle or savannah and know this person has the skills needed to fill that job. going forward, community colleges will continue to do a lots of great things around the two-year level and graduating people and also be a source for folks to use their student aid to drive industry recognized certifications to a greater degree. >> this problem of completion with the remedial programs point to some of the opportunities and the challenges around accountability. if we say that we are going to yet more aid to community colleges or restrict aid if you are not -- at a certain percentage of your students are not complaining programs, that be an important way because some schools do a better job at making those students graduate. there are innovative ways that

they do that, but some students are better than others. we do not want to create a system where we are incentivizing schools to not take students who might be at a greater risk of not completing the course may be because they do not get as well-prepared as they should have an high school. it is a balancing act. it is a critical area. community colleges are are such an engine of economic growth that we have to figure out some of our options. i agree about counseling. students have so little idea of what to expect when they get to college. that is the role of the counselors. we have been cutting back on those at the high school level. it is an issue. >> this is a great point about remediation and the need to have boots on the ground.

mentors.ssible to be there are systemic issues in the way institutions are incentivized. you have to be careful not to incentivize the wrong thing. you want to make these things work together. if it was easy, it would have been done already. we are doing the work now. >> technology can help mentoring. it is not only the face to face interaction. there is skype, ways to expand the use of technology to mentor or people. we do a fair amount of bringing folks into the classroom, but that is just one small example where we can use technology to meet millions of young people. our company executives want to

volunteer. yours do. the ability to bring these folks and maybe something we think about. >> we would not have the student outcomes we have from our programs -- the first generations of graduate programs online -- if we did not have that live component where you use something like skype where it looks like something like "the brady bunch ." you see eight students on the top of the screen and engage with them. >> i want to get to one last question from the audience before we wrap up. think about your concluding remarks. >>[indiscernible] i am trying to get my ged and it tech certification.

for the students who are working to want to attend college but cannot support themselves financially, what programs can assist young folks to attend college who cannot do it on their own a business perspective? >> we talked about federal financial aid before and filling out fafsa and making sure pal grants are there. there are other integrative -- innovative programs out there that some -- that supplies support ports to. fax there are companies moving in that -- >> there are companies trying to move into that space. straight a line - one comp -- one company offers unlimited college courses that are accredited. youth build is a final --

phenomenal program that is focused on high school completion. we need more. we need to do more to help students effectively transition and gain information, especially first generation students who do not have the support system to help fight them through the college admission process -- help guide them through the college admission process. we have a responsibility as society to do a better job to get information into the hands of people who need to use it. crack>> there are certain -- the are opportunities that allow kids to have their full college education paid for. how do we scale and replicate these to a greater degree? in d.c., if you graduate from a high school, we will subsidize

you going to any state college in the country. you will get in-state rates. lots of different strategies to pay for school or drive down costs. more information needs to be disseminated and leadership in your community because taking some of those good examples are doable with the right set of players and stakeholders coming together. >> we have time for one more question. >> good morning. i am neil isaac from keiser university in florida. in my 29 years of working in higher education, i would say it is so important to meet with 100% of your upcoming graduates. a career center cannot be where you help a student walks by and get help.

at keiser university, we meet with all of our students at least a full semester to get their resume on the online career center. we started a program with 10 seminars involving civic responsibility. they have to do community service, learn how to interview, write a resume, job search, etc. they get an honor court and the kids love it. and we are getting back to the community. here's my question to ask not all colleges -- not all colleges -- they all have different formulas for what placement means. how do you define the placement? how many employment verifications do you have to get to prove replacement rate?

will employers return the employment verifications? will it graduate tell you their salary? there are complications. you believe we should get to an apples to apples placement formula? >> one of the most and effective ways to get this information about employment outcomes is to individual colleges collect them itself. one of the most efficient ways is to use a suppository of where people in the state are and to match it with your state unit record system of where students were and match it. you do not have to figure out -- i do not know if i would tell my college what my salary is now. the social security administration has it. if i am unemployed, i would want him to make sure i am ok. systems have this information.

there are ways to protect privacy. there may be some record keeping you want to do on your own and you may want to tailor it. you may want to ask questions help you determine your programs. some of these solutions are systemwide that make the process easy for individual institutions. >> i agree. it is not easy. it does not get tied to the individual named. if it's tied to the individual nature. institutions will find it to their advantage to have that data because the decision-makers in terms of where they go are going to expect that information. keiser does a lot of tremendous output. i am a huge data person.

let the data tell the story. be your advocate. make informed decisions. it is not easy. it is something we need to get to. >> some schools can do it and some schools will not. if i am looking at where to send a student, i am probably going to pick a school that is more transparent and more willing to provide that data. i would think twice about why an institution did not do it. i know it is not easy. it is doable and it is proven to be doable. to me, it is where you want to see and place your institution and how attractive you want it to be. cracks having the institution have its own incentive -- >> if you are doing a great job, why wouldn't you want to tell that

story? you would hope that if you know you're graduates are successful, you want to tell that story through data. students can help put that pressure through institutions by saying they want to know. it is important to me and my family. >> back to the question about inding for education do--i i have found that there are several colleges that i have applied to or i have looked on their website and heard from their students and student leaders that there are 1000 scholarships that are not applied for because students do not know about them. it poses the question, is the institution doing all they can to correctly market what they offer to students?

it is unfortunate we have all of this money tied up in scholarships that is not being accessed and is unaware it to the student. >> i want to offer the panelist s reflections from our time together here. we have heard from th about thed for better information to help students get better information, the cost of college and why that is so high and what we can do to bring down the cost through more innovative business models. we talked about nontraditional students and what they may be looking for. we talked about traditional students and what they may be looking for. what is your take away? if you wanted people to leave here here and else, what would that be -- hearing nothing else, what would you want that to be? >> your advocacy can related to

your own institution, state, federal government, to what you want to be in terms of your career. continue your advocacy. continue your involvement because we have problems to overcome and challenges to meet. the only way to do it is to maintain your leadership roles. i have been on the state board of education for the last seven years. i have seen transformational changes in the k-12 system in florida, and the country, with bipartisan leadership from presidents, legislators, governors. college, higher ed is at a tipping point. the college that issue has been put on the front struck him -- spectrum. the recent business recession has changed a lot of expectations of what you put

into college and what you get out of college. that return on investment, data- driven decision-making will become as imperative as it is in pre-k-12 in the higher education system. i look forward to it. they need african -- they need advocates and leaderships. i am thrilled to be with young invincibles on this panel. thank you for your participation. >> quick word on next steps. this year, young invincibles is partitioning -- partnering with a campus organization. it represents student body presidents from across the country. we will do something called the national student impact campaign. it is about empowering students to the leaders and drivers of

some of the changes we are talking about. whether that means doing a college affordability audit on your campus, working with students to say, we have heard a lot of us practices of peer. is your campus is doing that? can you push the administration to actually put in place some of these things that we know can bring down costs? we did not talk about one of the biggest drivers of higher ed growth and cost, which is state disinvestment. it used to be that states covered well over 50% of the cost of you going to college. now, maybe the student pays 90% and the state pays 10%. there are widgets at the state level -- every year, there are budget cuts at the state level. one of our goals is to work with student leaders around the country to make sure their voices are heard at state

capitals and make sure we invest in public universities and community colleges because that is how we will keep schools affordable. that is an exciting new campaign. we can talk about that during the breakout sessions this afternoon. you can find out more from young invincibles. i encourage all of you guys to touch one another. are interesting students in this room who in their local community can be great partners for you all. i look forward to that breakout this afternoon. crac>> improving higher educatin is an economic and moral imperative for our generation. economic because at some point, we have to actually make everything work and a strong, stable middle class is the most

effective way to actually build that. morley, the american dream does not work if you do not have access to information -- morley, the american dream does not work if you do not have access to affirmation to improve your life. we need to be very clear about the importance of this issue, the importance of access information to continue advocating on your campus and to recognize the reason that these issues are often not addressed on a national level is because young people rarely organize. they really come together as a block -- they rarely come together as a block. getting deeply involved more in things like young invincibles on a national level to make sure this discussion is heard and that we are focusing as a

society on these issues before our generation before they are in congress discussing it because at that point, it will be too late. cracks this -- >> this has been an informative experience. to come from utah and get a feel on how things work on the east coast. it is a pleasure to be back here. there has not been a time in the history of the united states where students need to step up to the plate more and take action for the education man now. i take away from this discussion the importance for students to get involved at a grassroots level, to become delegates, to be the voice for higher education at the administration's, cities.

there is power in numbers. students, be a part of the discussion. there are folks in the private sector and public's sector who would love to see -- here the students' voice. i challenge you to be a presence at the capital and work with the people who support you. >> i want to thank you all. we heard that increasing higher education is critical to the future of our country, for global competitiveness and national competitiveness to be the great nation we are. we need people who are well- equipped. it's hard to be a good citizen when you do not have a way to support yourself. i am glad we were able to flesh out. i heard a lot of positive

remarks about things we all agree on and things we can do to move forward. i hope that in the afternoon sessions, we can build on the progress. i want to thank you all for coming and being with us today. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> launch has been set up in the back so take a break and grab yourself something to eat. chat with your folks at your table and we will have our keynote speaker i think around 12:30-ish. enjoy a break and some food, thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> we will look at u.s.-canada relations and energy exploration and the completion of the cross border keystone xl gas pipeline at 7:00 eastern. on c-span 2 this afternoon, the former cia director discusses how digital media has transformed national security

and intelligence gathering. he will look at the potential threats from cyber attacks and may touch upon the news that the chinese army is conducting a huge number of cyber attacks in the u.s. and that will be on c- span 2. the house and senate are up this week by president obama is talking about what they need to do next week. he is urging congress -- congressional republicans -- to accept more tax revenue to avoid the budget cuts in two weeks. the so-called sequester will take place and he spoke this morning for about 15 minutes. >> come to the white house.

our top party must be to do everything we can to grow the economy and create good middle- class jobs. that is our top priority. that is our number started that drives every decision we make it has to drive every decision that congress and everybody in washington makes over the next several years. that is why it is so troubling that just 10 days from now, congress might allow a series of automatic, severe budget cuts to take place that will do the exact opposite. it will not help the economy. it will not create jobs. it will visit hardship on a whole lot of people. here is what is at stake -- over the last few years in both parties, they have work to reduce our deficit by more than $2.50 trillion. more than 2/3 of that was through some pretty tough spending cuts.

the rest of it was through raising taxes, tax rates on the wealthiest 1% of americans. together, when you take the spending cuts and the increased tax rates on the top 1%, it puts us more than halfway toward the goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction that economists say we need to stabilize our finances. back in 2011, congress also passed a law saying that of both parties could not agree i plan to raise that $4 trillion goal, about $1 trillion of additional arbitrary budget cuts would start to take effect this year. by the way, the whole design of these arbitrary cuts was to make them so unattractive and unappealing that the democrats and republicans would get together and find a good compromise, a sensible cut for tax loopholes and so forth.

this was all designed to say that we cannot do these bad cut, let's do something smarter. that was the whole point of this so-called sequestration. unfortunately, congress did not compromise. they have not come together and done their jobs so the consequence is that we have the automatic brutal spending cuts that are poised to happen next friday. if congress allows this meat cleaver approach to take place, it will jeopardize our military readiness, it will eve disarrayed job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research. it will not consider whether we are cutting some bloated program that has outlived its usefulness or a vital service that americans depend on every day. it does not make those distinctions. emergency response like the ones who are here today, their ability to help communities respond to and recover from

disasters will be degraded. border patrol agents will see their hours reduced. fbi agents will be furloughed. federal prosecutors will have to close cases and let criminals go. air traffic controllers and airport security will see cutbacks which means more delays at airports across the country. thousands of teachers and educators will be laid off. tens of thousands of parents will have to scramble to find child care for their kids. hundreds of thousands of americans will lose access to primary care and preventive care like flu vaccinations and cancer screenings. already the threat of these cuts as for the navy to delay an aircraft carrier that was supposed to deploy to the persian gulf. as our military leaders have made clear, changes like this

not well thought through, not phased in properly, changes like this effect or a bill bill -- affect our ability to respond to threats in parts of the world. these cuts are not smart or fair and will hurt our economy and they will add hundreds of thousands of americans to the unemployment rolls. this is not an abstraction. people will lose their jobs. the unemployment rate might take up again. that is why democrats, republicans, business leaders, and economists have already said that these cuts known as sequestration are a bad idea. they are not good for our economy and not how we should run our government. here is the thing -- they don't have to happen. there is a smarter way to do this, to reduce our deficit without harming our economy but congress has to act. in order for that to happen.

for two years, i have offered a balanced approach to deficit reduction that would prevent these harmful cuts. i outlined it again last week at the state of the union. i am willing to cut more spending that we don't need. a -- we can get rid of programs that are not working for it i have laid out specific reforms to our entitlement programs that can achieve the same amount of health care savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms that were proposed by the bipartisan simpson-bowles commission. i am willing to save hundreds of billions of dollars by enacting comprehensive tax reform that gets rid of tax loopholes and deductions for the well off and well-connected. without raising tax rates. i believe such a balanced approach that combines tax reform with some additional spending reforms done in a smart

and thoughtful way is the best way to finish the job of deficit reduction and avoid these cuts once and for all that could hurt our economy and slow our recovery and put people out of work. most americans agree with me. the house and the senate are working on budgets that i hope reflect this approach. but if they cannot get such a budget agreement done by next friday, the day these harmful cuts begin to take effect, then at minimum, congress should pass a smaller package of spending cuts and tax reforms that would prevent these harmful cuts, not to kick the can down the road, but to give them time to work together on a plan that finishes the job of deficit- reduction in a sensible way. i know democrats in the house and senate have proposed such a

plan, a balanced plan, one that appears more spending cuts with tax reform and closes special- interest loopholes and make sure -- and make sure the billionaires' to not pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. i know that republicans have proposed ideas, too. i have to say that so far, at least, the ideas the republicans have proposed do not approach anything about the wealthiest americans so the burden is on first responders or seniors or middle-class families. they double that on a harsh and harmful cuts i have outlined. they slashed medicare. what they have expressed as a preference for they would rather have these cuts go into effect and close a single tax loophole for the wealthiest americans. not one. that is not balanced.

that would be like democrats saying that we have to close our deficit without any spending cuts whatsoever. that is not the position democrats have taken or myself. it is wrong to ask the middle class to bear the full burden of deficit reduction. that is what i will not sign a plan that harms the middle class. now republicans in congress face a simple choice -- are they willing to compromise to protect vital investments in education, health care, and national security and all the jobs that depend on them or would they rather put hundreds of thousands of jobs and our entire economy at risk just to protect a few special interest tax loopholes that only benefit the wealthiest americans and corporations? that is the choice. are you willing to see a bunch of first responders lose their job because you want to respect some tax loopholes?

are you willing to have teachers laid off or kids not have access to headstart programs deeper cuts to student loan programs just because you want to protect the special tax interest loophole that the vast majority of americans don't benefit from. that is the choice. that is the question. this is not an abstraction. there are people whose livelihoods are at stake, their communities that are impacted in a negative way and i know that sometimes all the squabbling in washington seems very abstract. in the abstract, people like the idea that there must be some spending we can cut it must be some waste out there. there absolutely is. but this is not the right way to do it. my door is open. i put tough cuts and reforms on the table. i am willing to work with anybody to get this job done.

none of us will get one under% of what we want. nobody should want these cuts to go through because the last thing our families can afford right now is paying in post -- is pained imposed by rigidities in washington. the american people have worked too hard, to log rebuilding from one crisis to see their elected officials cause yet another one. it seems every three months around here that there is a manufactured crisis. we've got more work to do than to just try to dig ourselves out of these self-inflicted wounds. the plan to reduce our deficit has to be part of our agenda, we also have to remember deficit reduction alone is not an economic plan. whenarned in the 1990's bill clinton was president,

nothing shrinks a comic faster -- nothing grows the economy faster. we should make america a magnet for good jobs, equipping our people with skills required to fill those jobs, making sure their hard work leads to a decent living. those are the things we should be pushing ourselves to think about and work on every single day. that is what the american people expect. that is what i will work on every single day to help deliver. i made everybody watching today to understand that we have a few days, congress can do the right thing, we can avert one more washington-manufactured problem that slows our recovery, and bring down our deficit and balanced and responsible way. that is my goal and that's what will do right by these first responders and what would do right by america's middle class.

that is what i will be working on fighting for not just over the next few weeks but over the next few years. thanks very much, everybody. thank you guys for your service. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> jay carney is holding his daily briefing and getting questions about the president's comments this morning and you can fall that live online at c- span.org. reaction from capitol hill even though the house and senate are

out. senator john boehner says replacing the president's sequester will require a plan to cut spending that will put us on the path to a budget. also from the republican leader in the senate -- on c-span later this evening, we will bring you the canadian ambassador to the u.s. and a former canadian deputy prime minister looking at a number of topics including border security, trade, and energy exploration and specifically, the completion of the completionxl oil gas pipeline. you can follow that discussion this evening on c-span at 7:00 p.m. eastern.

the supreme court today agreed to hear a challenge to a count -- to campaign finance law limiting how much an individual can donate to federal -- to federal candidates in committees. the court decision to take up the talent comes three years after the citizens united decision ending the ban on corporate donations to independent groups in federal elections. the group of political scholars recently examine the consequences of the citizens united decision. it was a form at the cato institute. this is three hours. thank you very much for your kind words and you were too generous but we will continue love fest later. i owe most of my career to the cato institute. let's get down to business and talk about post-citizens united

world. the question we have been asked is have elections changed because of the citizens united decision. >> john, i appreciate your kind words. i owe most of my career to cato, that is the real truth. not the other way. in any case, let's get back to business and talk about the post-citizens united world here. have things changed because of the decision? i encompassed within that the case of the [indiscernible] not only because i was one of the co-founders on that, but because it is technically the case that allows the superpac,

which is a more important case, i think, than citizens united, although it did get to the supreme court first. i use citizens united to refer to both of those cases. the fact is, these cases did not change nearly so much as some people think or have been led to believe. prior to citizens united groups that we would call 527's could run ads pretty much any time prior to six days before the general election in which they could say almost anything they wanted about a candidate as long as they did not conclude by saying -- vote for this candidate or vote for his opponent. they could say that john sample is a dirty rotten scoundrels who kicks small dogs. call them and tell them that we do not need his agenda. people would be like -- that is upsetting. you can do that. now, with citizen united outside an election. prior to 2003, you could do that anytime. after the wisconsin right to life vs. sec, there were more ways to run those ads. the court took a narrow view.

corporations and unions to pay for these ads, since the nature of the ads was a bit different. they could also be conducted and were conducted by nonprofit organizations. if you need an example, here is a real ad. this is from the naacp in 2000, featuring a great black-and- white film, chains dragging a black man to his death. the voice comes on and says "i am the daughter of james bird. my father was killed in texas. beaten and dragged 3 miles to his death because he was black. when governor george w. bush refused to support a crime legislation, it was like my father was killed all over

again. call george w. bush and advise him to support hate crime legislation. we will not be dragged away from our future." that ad ran before the 2000 election. is that a radical change from where we are post-citizens united? i want to stress first that the changes not so great as some might think. moreover, it is not so great in an important way. i think that to the average citizen out there there are a lot of news stories trying to rile them up and talk about corporate plutocracies, but the campaign looked pretty much like any other campaign. there were lots and lots of television advertisements. we also know from political science research that it helps voters to make decisions.

there were lots of negative ads. they claim to hate that, they have said that in every poll since i was born, although in fact they do respond to them. they think the campaign is too long and they have said that in every poll since i was born. it means candidates have to start raising money earlier. so, all of these things to the average voter, if you actually look there is nothing new, it is just what they have always complained about. like complaining about the weather or whenever it else it is that people complain about. having said that, citizens united and the other cases that have floated their way are in fact none the less important.

tastes, it is important to be able to do express advocacy ads. sometimes you want to do that express advocacy. i think that in many ways express advocacy advertisements and the ability to fund those create a somewhat more honest system. they do not say to call george bush to support hate crime legislation. that is not really the issue. you're trying to get people to vote against him in the election. it has definitely increased the amount of political spending in the campaigns. i think it is probably safe to say that it is probably between 10% and 20% in the last

election has come from liberal spending policies like citizens united. i will not argue unless they draw up some preposterous figure like 80%. whether you think this is good or bad depends on your tastes. there is good information a higher spending does and usually can lead to a better informed electorate, which can be used to depress voter turnout but also to increase voter turnout. certainly in the elections the fed from 2010 to 2012, turnout has not been a problem. the other thing that we often get is this idea that there is all of this undisclosed spending, where the point that people seem to agree upon is

dark money. that seems to be the term that the liberal reform organizations and press were using, so i assumed they had a conference where they focus groups and tested that. that is a misleading label by itself. every political ad says who paid for it. it is the law in every political ad. what they mean to say is that we do not know enough about these groups as we would like to know. they are disclosed, we just wish we would know more. take the u.s. chamber of commerce for example, i am not sure that that comes into play much. if someone cannot figure out the basic agenda of the chamber of commerce, that is just voting. let everyone boat?

we do not put that kind of test on people. is it really that important that we know exactly which companies gave money to their multimillion-dollar budget? any kind of dominant percentage? the problem might be low grade when you have groups called, for example, american commitment, which ran ads in the last cycle. people saying they cannot judge the message and do not know who the candidate might be thinking about or be beholden to in some way, but this is so overplayed, estimates i have taken are that about 7% of the spending in 2012 came from groups that did not disclose their donors. this is a decline from 2010. it is no surprise that this is a decline, the only glue -- the

only groups that do not have to disclose their donors are non- profit trade organizations, unions, dollars in small amounts with nonprofit organizations, such as the sierra club or the nra. specifically for the idea that i want to do political activity, they had to realize that these groups were limited to spending something under half of what they do under political activity. it goes hand-in-hand with their legal status. so, these groups are spending something less than that. if you are a guy that wants to influence the election, if you do not want to have your name disclosed for the ad, you have to realize you're essentially

paying a 50% tax on your political activity. that half the money that you give them will not be used in the campaign's the want them. that could be misleading as well. they might do it for things you might like, like at with a need to reduce deficit spending outside the context of candidate elections. but still, that is not an official way to do it. you would much rather give it to the superpac, which exposes all the donors if that is your goal. we should talk about how citizens united has actually affected the race. one of the things it has done is made races more fluid, making it possible to get money into a political race much more quickly than used to be the case. most incumbent politicians tend to be that as bad.

-- tend to view that as bad. why? incumbents usually start out with a big lead and are usually fairly comfortable. who is going to get the big influx of cash? almost always a challenger. the classic example being the 2010 race and a woman named rene eldridge. he had won easily in 2008. in 2010 they knew it would be a bad year for democrats. cuomo was raising some money and he was going to have to show up a bit to raise reelection. but he was on nobody's watch list. not even on the likely democrat but watch. he was a safe seat in every one of the major rankings that undertakes them until one day he is walking outside the capitol

building and some of these guns of journalists jumped him and started asking hard questions he did not like and he eventually lost his temper. these young students, he was trying to grab the camera and throw a punch, or something like that. it looks really bad. the liberal was probably becoming more conservative. what made the difference was that it was possible to get $500,000 into the campaign in independent expenditures allowed by citizens united and speech now almost overnight. whereas in the past after a huge fund-raising advantage, they would have just written that out. as it is, etherege spent far more than elmhurst. even when you include the independent spending, he outspent her by about $600,000. like many incumbents, etherege

complained that it was terribly unfair that these independent groups could come in and spend all this money. he was defeated in 2010 and went back to his seat in the 2012. $500,000 in independent spending, he was the target. he said that this cost him the election and it was terribly unfair. and he is almost certainly right because he lost the election by only a few hundred votes. it probably did swing the election. but what they did not seem to think was on affair was that he outspent his opponent in that race by 3.1 million to $840,000. even with the independent spending he outspent her by well over $1 million. perfectly fine, perfectly fair, the normal consequence of the

ad. this is just fine and normal and the way it ought to be. let a group of citizens come in who are not controlled by a candidate and spend money? this is outrageous. this must be stopped. that was his position. we see it over and over again in these races. we see a candidate like pete defazio, who had never had a serious challenge, he actually had to break a sweat. he won his re-election fairly easily, but he had to at least run for the first time in years primarily because independent spending was made possible by a challenger. a couple of the of the things that occur -- we could go on and on with examples, but i will leave that as it is.

one thing that we see is that i think citizens united has made an political parties -- has made political parties weaker. mccain fine gold tied soft money to parties. exclosure was totally disclosed. there was an intermediary in which the might be spent. it did not have to spend a lot of time raising money, another big complaint that we hear about the system. in some ways seem to be the best money in the system. but it looked bad. it looked bad. it was large amounts of money, large amounts of money. they went into hysterics and it looked bad.

the cases that have come since, they now allow independent spenders and allow people to pool their resources to make independent expenditures without prohibitions on the source. the end result is that groups such as crossroads gps or more traditional groups, like the chamber or planned parenthood can spend large amounts of money in many ways much more easily than the parties can. this reduces the importance of parties and increases the importance of single interest groups and individual candidates. i would note that that can be resolved primarily by simply making it easier for parties and candidates to raise money directly rather than try to the citizens united back in the box. which do nothing is possible, as it is a constitutional decision. i think that what we should be looking for in future efforts

for reform is deregulating the system with restoration of parties to greater significance, making it so the candidates have some of the same advantages and lack of disadvantages that the independent spending groups do. i also think we should quit calling them outside spending, as if they are somehow outside the pale. it always seemed strange to me, this concept that and elections campaign should be just for the candidates. saying that they cannot control their own message? who says the you can control your own message? i do think that on the other hand it is silly to have candidates laboring under burdens that the independent spenders are not. i hope that will go away. i think that if you get past the hysterics, none of the dire predictions have come true. turnout remains strong with a

healthy democracy and elections. the problems that people complain about, there is almost no evidence that those to be thrown against citizens united. those of the same complaints that we heard before. i think that i indienne and this has been good for democracy. -- i think that in the end this has been good for democracy. there are clearly limits on the ability of government to regulate political speech of its citizens. i think that that is one of the most important statements we can have. i just do not think that in the and heavy government regulation of campaign finance will exist and ultimately the content of the messages we have seen over the years, already there will be examples from q&a. it is a very important

statement, we as the people have the right to speak out in the actions. thank you. [applause] >> thanks, brad. the second speaker today will be robert bauer, bob returned to the four -- returned to the firm after a period of service as white house counsel from december 2009 until june of 2011. he is now general counsel for the president's reelection committee for obama for america and general counsel for the democratic national committee. he has served as co-counsel to the new hampshire state senate in the trial of the hon. chief justice david lee broke. counsel to the democratic leaders on trial of jefferson clinton in 1999. the author of several books, united states federal election

law, from 1984, so -- the guide to the new campaign of finance law in 2002, more soft money and hard law, the definition of new finance laws in 2004, and many articles about campaign finance and laws. he is other was one of the leading experts and most experienced people in this area. we set out -- we certainly welcome him back to the institute as a commentary today. -- commentator today. >> thank you very much. john said something overly helpful about his own role in the field in his opening remarks. he has written a book on campaign finance, which whether you agree with it or not is untitled "the fallacy of

campaign finance reform." some may not agree that there's a fallacy there, but it is a provocative analysis and careful methodology that is well written and always arresting. i think it is a book that every practitioner in the field believes is superior contribution to literature. let me say that on this panel, i am in private practice and want to clarify that the opinions i am expressing are entirely my own. i always give clients the opportunity to disavow and of necessary terminate me. i want to make it clear that i am only speaking for myself. let me go directly to the question at hand. by the way, i will swing a little bit from the question of how and whether citizens united affected election 2012. also the larger significance for campaign finance regulation in the united states.

first of all, the first question, how did it affect the election? a couple of quick points of light to make. it depends on what we need. citizens united has come to represent something larger than itself. it is quite significant. it is true that to understand citizens united and its impact your up to understand the context of the field of campaign finance. of course, it is very closely associated in the public with the rise of the superpac, but it is not the sole sponsor of that phenomenon. it does interact with other developments. there was a background to it that has to be considered a part of and not the sole actor. i do believe that in the public

debate it is solely responsible for the trend and the apotheosis of the trend, it is the trend that people frequently mean when they refer to citizens united. i have called it a trend towards the liberal -- liberalization of the campaign finance fund, critics have called it a collapse of the conceivable connection -- collection of campaign finance laws, but one way or the other it has obtained significance and is a short and in many respects for that development. not very long ago a professor at the university of california in irvine had an exchange about citizens united. it began with an article in "the new york times" magazine where they challenged the notion that it had had a dramatic impact. they went back and forth and much of the debate was about whether citizens united had driven up campaign spending in the 2012 cycle. he said a few minutes ago that

it was by some number, which we can debate, it may well have. others have said that since it opened up the oil -- opened up the opportunity practically speaking, others have taken the position that even though it has not yet spurned major corporate political actions, it has encouraged much more aggressive behavior. what i guess i would appeal for here in my remarks is some humility about the effects of citizens united. the practical fact that it had deserted difficult to judge on the basis of two election cycles. the midterm 2010 and the presidential election campaign of 2012.

the effects playing out over extended period of time, often over one. that comes heated around one particular topic, it turns out to have been off the mark and misguided. a good example of that is the 1980's, 70's and 80's, there was an enormous amount of excitement and debate over the role of political action committees. subsisting on contributions solicited from corporate objections, they published a book entitled "what part -- what price pac"? now considered a fairly tame vehicle for democratic participation, shifting completely away from them. over time we will see more about what citizens united actually means, whether it's burned the development of

superpac's. generally it has really transform the landscape and mobilized direct corporate intervention in those campaigns. so, i would say but that a little bit of time will be required for us. i think that a reasonably of not conclusive and satisfying answer to question -- when i say it had interacted with other developments, which complicates the analysis and justifies the humility, i mean not just court and judicial developments, but regulatory developments, including the enforcement of the campaign act, largely a part of the election commission, is it an archaic institution developed in the 1970's the

cannot deal with the problems of today? there were obvious the proposals to abolish and replace it. the federal election commission has had to address its actions or inactions, which have had significant impact some larger questions, like whether or not for example certain organizations that appear to be engaged in this activity through the kinds of activity referred to are or are not federally registered will political communities that should be registered to the government and disclosing that activity and complying with financing. so, there is a broad series of factors that accounts for what people frequently take it to be. without any doubt it has contributed in it's shorthand form to the view that times have really changed. we are not sure where it will go or what it will mean for the

campaign finance regulatory system and is not in some way on the current model to rehabilitate it. in the minds of people certainly signifies that we are facing a set of large questions in the united states. now, the question comes -- white, more specifically, as the laws develop, what role will they have in those debates? this is more the issue of the second panel, but i would like to tease into it for just a second. john having given us permission to do so. so far think the debate has in some respects missed how they have moved the arguments and frankly the prospects of the current financial regulatory regime and the way it has been adjusted and altered.

much of the discussion about the case has been doctrinal, what it has done with doctrine, the question of doctrine the constraints of government regulates political money. for example, citizens united fairly decisively-the hopes of those who in addition base the regulation on appearance and there would be some restoration of the attention to political equality as a sustainable rationale for government action. certainly, citizens united speaks to that issue. second, there was a hope that some more practical approaches would be taken on the part of critics -- and i am not taking a position one way or the other on this -- to the status of the

expenditures. you will recall the supreme court actually took in cases that involve judicial campaign finance a critical view of what constituted a significant independent expenditure. there was hope that the court would loosen up the opportunity here to really look at whether or not these expenditures were truly corrupt, if you know the basic theory being, as alluded to a few minutes ago from 1976, they could not be corrupted because they were independent of the candidates, they may suffer from them but had no control over them and because they were independent, online contributions they could not be corrupt. there is obviously a school of thought that empirically that is not correct and congress had new ways to put down independent expenditures. it is a second doctrinal

development in some ways. i also believe that the court of citizens united left a remarkable record here. a record on judicial skepticism for the lower supreme court of the united states. in a way that leads to real questions about where it can go from here. of course the baseline as the model established in the 1970's, a mixed regime of contribution limits and disclosure requirements. the court in citizens united along the way, justice kennedy writing for the court had this to say on a couple of points, really suggesting that the court at least is approaching this hire question of how government sorts out and controls campaign financing is very risky business and highly suspect. here are a few examples.

in the opinion that it does not receive as much attention. justice kennedy, speaking about the complexity of campaign finance regulation, bearing in mind the enforcement schemes and opposition to those regulations, nonetheless obviously the fcc operates through rulemaking. campaign finance regulation is how we impose unique and complex rules subject to separate rules for 30 different types of federal speech. the sec has adopted pages of regulations. 1071 of advisory opinions since 1975. continuing from their, kennedy speaking -- this regulatory

scheme may not the primary in the strict sense of that term as speakers are not compelled by law to seek it buys and from the sec before the speech takes place, but as a practical matter, however -- he goes on to write -- given the complexity shone through administrative determination, the speaker who wants to avoid the threat of liability and the heavy cost against the sec must ask a governmental agency for permission to speak. they must ask for leave of the government speak. in the segment i am giving you he concludes with the following -- these onerous restrictions function as a prior restraint, giving the sec power analysis to licensing the laws of 16th and 17th century england, the sort that they were drawn to prohibit because their business is to sensor and there is a

danger that there may be less of a response in court to the constitutional expression. >> here is the fundamental from the court, the the very business of regulating politics, regulating campaign finance, which necessarily entails intervention through other ways by which the administrative agency is heard poses a fundamental threat of censorship. it adheres in the past that it is within their goals to the first amendment. that is one point he makes that raises the question of the 1970's regulatory model. another that he addresses is the question of the distinction on different kinds of speakers. in citizens united he was referring to the congressional

expectation that corporations the spending directly. in that sense even though there was an action committee, they precluded from direct participation in a way that is not true of other entities. certainly true foreign contractors and other entities, but as i said on the regime of contribution limits they were drawn differently from individuals based on legislative determinations from the balance that was, whole, not to mention in the specific determination, the least corrupt. on that he has this to say -- quite apart from the purpose of regulating contact -- content, if a lot is identified by preferred speakers, taking the right to speak for some and giving it to others, the government deprives this disadvantaged person or class of the speech that establishes worth and respect for the voice of the speaker.

fundamentally again, speaking to the fundamental model -- i can do this -- he is saying that the distinction is inherently suspect. some people participate more than others and are constitutionally troubling. first, justice kennedy speaks about the fact that these funds are not terribly effective, because one way or another people will find a way around them. he does this in quotes. political speech is so ingrained in our culture, they found -- they find a way around it. you could draw it down to a much bolder statement, but it could not really work. last but not least on the subject of cost, obviously the subject of the back-and-forth

between those and others who have commented on $1.2 billion in the campaign house race and senate races, the court does not seem inclined to revisit the 1976 suggestion the cost may be a concern, but is not concerned enough to justify heavy intervention in the process. kennedy quote from that court saying -- the cost of political campaign cannot sustain the governmental prohibition. he sets aside the cost as a basis for legislature lead. where does that fundamentally leave us? it is the court reverses the congress, the basic tasks and the desirability of the task of

regulating political money in our system. the court seems to be reflecting, or at least that story does, a profound skepticism. i will close by citing to you a pioneering campaign finance scholarships for many years ago. cost democracy, published in 1962. he was a cautious scholar and did not have what by contemporary terms would be aggressive pro-regulatory views. he was very insistent on the data and what it showed in tracing the money to the facts. there were three requirements that he thought were necessary for a balanced campaign finance system. number one, and this is very important in terms of the driver of campaign finance and policy agenda since the 1920's, resources have to be sufficient

to support the campaign. we have to have the resources for the actors in the political process to accomplish what they want to accomplish. affectively we need to have the way to have those resources that does not permit particular resources to so control financing that it drives the government in a particular direction. last but not least, the third requirement, the public in the system, they have to believe the system actually functions with integrity, intelligently, and surely also with of room for people to participate in the political process. fundamentally they have to have confidence in the process. since citizens united reflected a view, not the only case of the time interacting with other cases that go much to the same point, right now there were four justices on the court

agreed on the resources but did not agree that there was anything the government could do on the other points about sources that could be made compatible with the goal protecting the integrity of the government and securing confidence in the political process. with that, thank you very much. [applause] >> says you may have noticed, we have discussed the issue of experience, what actually happens. when i think about political science, and talks on this area, i think about our third speaker this morning whose work i always appreciate and always want to see. ray is an associate professor at ray is an associate professor at university of