you -- for people who are seeing the headlines and wondering where did this come from, what do you say? -- this is ak topic that is very tricky to put in mainstream newspapers in the amount ofi am not at all surprit it took awhile to make it into mainstream newspapers. this is where the rubber -- meets the road with curriculum. for three years this has been coming on. and has been very abstract. most people go, what standards? and they move on. becoming real in schools, people are seeing a more concrete way. edweek.org follow more on this. the debris much for your time.

but that's it for today's " washington journal." thank you very much for your time. enjoy the rest of your tuesday. >> the association for unmanned vehicle system holding the annual conference in washington. we are carrying a live discussion of the network on our companion network, c-span to. join us on c-span for a discussion behind that event. att will be live right here

1:00 eastern on c-span. later today we will focus on gay marriage issues. here is a brief look. recall, thel strategy there relied upon was the cast living as gay couples as different and even deviants and not worthy of something as special does merit. for sandy and i with four children and all the other children who we want to help, that was too much to tolerate and hard to be in court when that was gone back over again. we listen to them and talk to the judge about how we were not worthy. a reallyt was difficult experience. i hope someday the video as on

the field and you can see and hear what we heard in the courtroom. and they had no evidence and could not back of any of their claims and i think that is why we won, the 17 witnesses we had reusing data and evidence. the people who are married are healthier and wealthier. and that they are happier in many cases and their lives are enriched by marriage. certainly knowing of option to be married is helpful. that was a great part about the trial. the harper was the news that came from their side. was the newspart that came from their site. >> you can watch the entire eastern. 5:45

google follow that with a live town hall on that event. we will talk about the legal and tax implications on the defense of marriage act and proposition 8. we will look at the legal landscape in states that face challenges to the same-sex marriage laws and take your phone calls and is the comments. from more book to be in prime time. we will focus on three books recommended by our viewers. the biography of venezuelan and political leader. tonight on encore presentation of first ladies -- himarah was a help to without his political career. she would critique speeches. she would read the newspapers

and underlined passages she thought important for him to read. she was a regular fixture in the galley and congress. typically they would enact a memorial to the outgoing speaker of the house. when he left congress to run for governor of tennessee, the congress was so widely divided they refuse to do that, but in the newspapers and no. politicians wrote poems in honor of sara at the time that she left. joseph storeys who broke a lengthy poem lamenting the loss of sarah to washington society. to go on court original series the first lady's continues tonight. maryland democratic senator ben cardin said states are facing challenges time to implement the health-care law known as obama care because of the lack of a federal budget agreement and sequestration cuts.

he made these remarks at a town hall meeting where he discussed the implementation of the affordable care act with health care professionals. new highheld of the wind town living center. this is just over an hour. living center.n >> welcome, everybody. thank you for joining us. this week is national community health centers week. all over the country there are events like this and other types of events happening. events are organizing to make sure the community knows about our special brand of medicine and how we can bring our a game to the table every day to serve america's communities that have many times too little access to health care.

so i wanted to welcome you all to the room and welcome senator ben cardin to the room who is no stranger to baltimore medical since and has been around i got here, and that is like 300 years ago. senator was at the very beginning of a great assist to baltimore medical system when we had our help waiver. we had a medicare demonstration project for many years, and every time it looked like it was going to end or expire come -- the senator could be counted on to not only sure it will be realistic but to renew the effort to make sure that happened.

when we wanted to build a brand- new building, he was the first one i came to see. which started the conversation when he was on one side of the hill and ended the conversation on the other side of the hill because it took that long for us to get the job done but the senator was responsible for the first public money coming into this venture that eventually grew into the building you were all sitting in now. for a tour toim see what the operation was like when it was in full. i want to thank the senator for and helping usin work our way through national health center week. i wanted to talk about the community health centers around the country. dan hopkins from the national association of community health centers to let you know what is happening what is literally at the federal level and how the

senators of parents will assist that effort. >> i will do that. honor toleasure and sit next to you. the table knowev he is one of the co-chairs of the senate community healthcare's caucus. he is the spirit behind the concept. he has led it in a visionary way, kept us all moving forward. it has been a tremendous health. we believe a program like this deserves and should have. this week alone there are over 1100 events across the country. they're celebrating the work of 150,000 people who worked at health centers providing care to 22 million americans and more than 9000 communities across the

country. that is a legacy for you. you helped build the system. it continues to carry on providing care to those who would otherwise be forgotten or left behind. that is critically important. a beautiful facility providing care to summon the people. take a first, let me think you all. this is national health center week. what we'veroud of done in the community. we go back a long time. i do remember visiting him in store fronts that were not exactly as facilitating. interesting, the people that receive the services in the very small cramped quarters love of the facility.

were getting access to quality, affordable health care which is the model you really developed here locally. a really do congratulate them for figuring out creative ways to keep the model alive and very challenging times. long ason it lasted so it was working. the problem is, we could not figure out a model nationally to get the type of funding you needed in order to maintain that service. we finally caught up to you. we have. , says wedable care act affordable -- says we want everyone in the facility.

we have modest people, rural minorities. the health centers have really fill the void. they will have to do a lot more. we are anticipating the numbers will increase dramatically. 800,000 and maryland that are not insured today that have fallen through the cracks. some will come through work you were doing. the purpose is to get your input as to how we can implement this bill as effectively as possible.

a large part of the affordable care act has already been implemented, 150,000 maryland jurors are getting checks from their insurance companies. ylanders are getting checks. it may not know why but very happy to deposit the checks. that is the loss ratio. insurance companies have to give the value for the product. for the people of maryland, 150,000 are getting checks. 50,000e population, seniors under the prescription drug program have received hundreds of dollars of additional coverage for the prescription medicines. that,re very happy about the doughnut hole coverage gap. we're getting rid of it. it will take a couple more years, but there are reducing the tangible benefits of that.

-- they are already seeing that tangible benefits of that. no one is talking about the solvency of medicare. we haveg people already eliminated her pre- existing conditions. already implemented. time about long patients' bill of rights. never able to get it passed. you have the right to choose your own primary-care doctor. that are changes already taking place. our office initiated this program to elevate the national institute of minority health and health disparities to the full institute and develop minority

health offices and all of the health departments to look at ways that we can provide and that the coverage and services we provide to all people in the community. that has been implemented and implemented well. we have already implemented a large part of the affordable care act. that is done. the next critical date is june reversed but really starts on october 1. that is when the exchanges are up and running. predicts statet that has stepped forward since they won. thank you, governor o'malley for recognizing what we could do to help the people of the state. we've worked very closely with state officials. let me thank my colleagues in the great senate, barbara mikulski. she is a key member of the health education and labor pension committee that is very

much involved in the creation of health policy and our state. our congressional delegation who holds the seat i used to hold in the house when we first started working on the issues has been a real champion. moving forward to make this implementation as smooth as possible. here is the challenge. there has been difficulty in implementing the bill and washington because we have not had the resources made available through the budget process so it could be done as seamless as possible. no real effort in congress to take a look at the affordable care act. and to make minor changes in order to make it easier. that has not been done because of the partisan divisions. we are up against deadlines that

will be difficult for us to meet, but we need your help in meeting the deadlines. the first test is october 1 with the public will have a chance to enroll in the exchanges. here is what opportunity is all about. hundreds of thousands of people in maryland who did not have health coverage today of the want the opportunity to have affordable health coverage. 45 percent will be eligible for subsidies. of four, around $95,000 or below they will be eligible if they do not have employer-provided health benefits. we need your help in getting that information out. we will see additional help come through the expansion of medicaid, which will provide additional coverage that we can get people enrolled.

excitinga lot of banks. come january 1, pre-existing conclusions are over with. we have already provided small businesses with credits to help provide insurance to employees. now there will be able to get insurance through the exchanges if they meet certain standards. companies under 50, no new requirements under the affordable care act. i always like to say that because we are mindful of the impact that the affordable care act has on small businesses. i served on the small business committee in the congress and want to make sure this is workable for all business but project is concerned about small companies. there is no new requirements. a lot of opportunities to get credits to pit for the cost of employees. they have a lot of different plans to choose from under the exchange's. the question is, how we

implement this and get this done right? that is where you come in. if you are the community people. it is very difficult to see how you will work your way through the different plans that are offered. the information is just now becoming available. we need people to help us transfers that in the way that is most effective for the people we're trying to reach. there are a lot of young people out there who do not have coverage. we know that. they will want a policy that works for them. most young people who have not experienced a difficult health issue think they are invincible. need your help because we know how many young people get into the medical situation. they either did not seek health will sometimese

for their own personal bankruptcies. avoid that.g to what i would like to get from you is how we can help, the tools you need from us, what we can do to make it easier for people to get the information they need. we want people to make the right decisions about the health care needs. we know there's a lot of partisan politics played in washington these days. i am trying to stay above that. i want people to make the right decisions for what is best for them. this bill will not be repealed. you would think the republicans would have gotten the message on the 30th time they tried to repeal it and it is still here. loseublic does not want to the benefits they have got from the affordable care act. seniors do not want to go back to higher cost of prescription drugs. families do not want to see the

young 25-year-old kicked out the health insurance policy. people like getting checks from the insurance companies that have been charging more than what we think is an acceptable rate for the health insurance. quite frankly, americans are tired of paying the cost of other people who should be responsible for your own health care needs. that is what this is all about. how do we implement in the way that makes the most sense for of the american people. >> two weeks ago i was in southern maryland and had a group of folks like this together and got into a discussion about things we could do to help in prince george's county. the people of baltimore, what can we do to help? to be made anded the law? what tools do you need for this to work? how can we get more people the information they need to make the right decisions for themselves and families? what would you like to see the

congress do? what would you like to see the senators do or congressman do or the local help people do? we're in this together. implement thisto bill as easily as we can. let me pick it up and then we will open a up. ,> baltimore medical system along with the other health centers are fully engaged in the process of opening up access. one of the things you did not mention was get out capital grants to organizations like us. we are expanding and rebuilding our center at st. agnes hospital which will be enlarged by now that -- by 9,000 feet which will allow us to grow services on that side of town to allow access. you use the word translate information for the patients who might need assistance.

literally we're translating a lot of services because we have uch a large non-eat flesh -- non-english speaking population. we have nine full-time equivalents that will be involved in our reach and enrolling people into the program. we will be everywhere in this community and around town to try to bring people in to make sure they are getting access to the information they need and can sign up for plans they are eligible for. we're gonna to do a lot of that together. i have a colleague here. you may want to say a couple words about what is going on in your center. at theave sally l. byrne end of the road down there that they want to say a couple of words. then we will open it up for everyone else. >> think you for reminding me,

one of the reason there was a delay of several years before we require people to get insurance and go into the exchanges was to develop this in the community so we could handle the numbers. we did not have enough facilities to handle the anticipated numbers. we're asking health care centers to expand the coverage. we wanted to give time for the structures to be in place. $11 million provided in the affordable care act. tos was part of the money include it early in the process. interested as to call on the people from the community health care centers whether some of the

of money has been used and how is it working and obviously interested in the entire country but very interested in maryland. we found in some of the rural areas we do not have enough facilities in place. quite frankly we will not roll all of the uninsured in one year. it will take several years to get us up to the numbers that we expect. are you getting the money? is it helping? >> we certainly are. health care for the homeless received a grant to establish the mobile program. we have a new facility that opened around the same time as this one about three years ago 3.5 miles from here. we began to realize we were serving those that were coming to us very well but a lot of vulnerable populations experiencing homelessness living under the bridge, living on park

benches and we needed to do more to go to encampments to engage people and care to get them off the streets and into the mainstream. for us, one of the main benefits is medicaid expansion. currently 23% of the 6000 we see every year has medicaid. the large majority for uninsured after 2014, as many as 85% will be eligible for medicare, in many cases for the very first time, eligible for additional specialty services in the community. this is making a transition from primarily a grant-funded organization to an organization that build insurance companies. that is a fundamental business transformation for us. the time that you referenced over the past couple of years has allowed us to dig into the billing systems and overhaul them and change them such that we feel quite ready in advance

of 2014 to go on to the streets and in world war people did care. we will see that -- we will receive as many as six new staff members that will go out to the streets and very actively and roll individuals and families and to care, in many cases for the very first time. if we appreciate your leadership and look forward to the transformation. the question i would have for you, we also participate through the national health care for the homeless council. we have some individuals who are very excited for medicaid expansion and what it means for medicaid organization and then that will not expand medicaid. the same old same old for vulnerable populations they are serving. what is your perspective from capitol hill? it is my hope is a national program and every state participate. that once the political rancor

guys found that more and more states will come over and take advantage of 100% federal money and meet the needs in the community. >> i think that is exactly what will happen. we're finding more and mor goanresisted that -- the obama care. now applying for funds to implement obama care. more examples where communities are seeing services and other areas that are saying why aren't we having that in our own state? i think you are absolutely care act getsble fully implemented as they expand the medicare population as maryland will be doing and as more of the uninsured, into the system. i think the states that have been resistant will say how can we deny that to the people of our state? we are losing money and losing services, that does not make

sense. plus, it is working. it is a lot more efficient to provide services to people on reimbursement structure than it is to rely on third-party grants that may or may not be there the following year. it is wonderful we have programs of the national level but help veterans, homeless, target groups and minorities. the funding source has not been very steady. what would happen to sequestration. it would be much safer in much smarter and less expensive but we have third-party reimbursement. -- look what happened to sequestration. i think more and more states will realize that. state's pride themselves and wanting to regulate their own businesses. the exchanges will be up in many states. there will be a real challenge as to how the states can regulate a federal exchange.

i think more and more states will realize they are compromising their own capacity to protect their own citizens without taking over the exchanges. i think more and more states will take over the exchanges. i agree with you that it will be a matter of time when it is implemented in a seamless way and we will have a uniform policy. part of why we expanded medicaid was to make sure we did not have people falling through the cracks. we did it as a seamless model. with the supreme court decision, it validated the constitutional authority of congress to pass the affordable care act, but it did provide the expansion of medicaid. we think states will recognize that and want to come forward and let federalism work in its best way. >> we are thankful for maryland's leadership. >> yes. gov. o'malley has been great. not just the expansion of

medicaid and how early he got involved working on the exchanges, but the fact that he gave confidence to insurance companies, give confidence to health-care providers. the state will be a full partner in this so there was much more willingness of providers and insurers and companies to step forward and say how can we make this work? we have had a real partnership and our state because of gov. o'malley is leadership. let me take a moment to recognize dr. alan bennett walked into the room. >> think you. -- thank you. there's a lot going on at every one ever 16 health care centers. not only in large part for what the state is doing. medicaid has a program going on

as early as now trying to enroll as many people in the pact program so they automatically convert in january, as well as working with health care for all, an organization in baltimore city to identify people that potentially could be enrolled. we have a real ground game going on. there is a partnership in which it will partner with the health centers to get the word out to various kinds of social and other types of media so we can reach as many people as possible. the $150 million is very helpful because it has helped the health centers to add additional staff so they could do and reach and make an insurer patients get converted to medicaid or get channeled to the exchange, if that is

appropriate, and going out into the community and trying to reach people and bring them in, not only for care but to get enrolled in medicaid. qualified through the exchange. so i think we have a lot going on. the health-care centers have been very busy with funding over the past two-three years tried to recruit providers. build the facilities. we just opened the one on thursday at franklin park and prince george's county, which is very exciting. so i think we have had a lot going on. is thiswhat concerns me is not a one-year just a few months activity. i think we will see the continuation of enrolling people in medicaid, get them into exchanges and identifying a new

population for the next three- for-five years. that we very concerned continue to have the level funded we have had over the past few years. and the subsequent years we have more building to do. we have done all kinds of reports and calculations. we really do not know what the volume will be. we will need providers to expand facilities, identify areas of the state where services are needed to develop new partnerships as we try to integrate semantic and behavioral health care. so that is my question and my challenge to you, what can we also do? what can we do to ensure we get the level of funding we had

through 2014. >> the funding authorizations are pretty stable. we have a federal appropriation process. two problems there. one is that we are operating without a budget agreement and desperately need a budget agreement. sequestration is really hurting this country badly. it is unnecessary. mindless across-the-board cuts. we have to replace sequestration. talking about eliminating it without comparable savings. every time the joint tax committee congressional budget office looks at the whole savings, we have always been conservative. we need funding in order to implement properly. we need a budget agreement that

makes sense, gets rid of budget sequestration and allows for the proper funding of government. the second is, we have to get over the political hurdle of talked about before. i want to raise a point, because there has been a sharp difference and how the opponents of affordable care act have handled the policy of health care compared to previous problems in health care expansion. under george bush we expand the prescription drug party. i opposed that because there was not a governmental plan available. there was not universal pricing, which i thought would bring down the price dramatically. the day after the bill was passed, i worked along with the people who oppose the bill to make sure it was implemented as best as we could. we worked together to make it work. we're not seeing that on the affordable care act.

we're seeing almost of political isolation of the issue, calling it politics rather than try to make it work the best you can in seeking changes you think should be changed. i am hoping we can get to that point and get the resources necessary to make sure the law is implemented fairly. you are correct that it will not be of one year implementation of the personal mandate. it will take a long time, it will take years. we know that. we also do not tight -- we also do not know what type of group will enroll the first year. it might surprise people and be very much typical of the risk that will alleviate a lot of the concerns of the private insurance companies that are participating. it may bring down the rates and may have more choice and may implement a little bit faster than we anticipate. it might be just the reverse, we do not know. we will need your active help

throughout the process to keep on target so we can get by the end of the year, three or four years, we can get overwhelming majority of people in the system. we think we can with in the short amount of time, but we need your participation, which means we need to make sure the programs are adequately funded. at the ground level, at the patient's level, it is really important that this program continue, this program be implemented well and that we have the means to do all the various things we have talked about here and provide the care , and roll the population, meet the needs of people who need an integrated model, a patient- centered type of model. dr. emily supple at the end of the table was a family

physician. a thing she can give really a view and provider view of what additional insurance might mean for the population research. >> absolutely. one of the biggest frustrations honestly is while i am very thankful for the existence of that program, i have 70 patients show up expecting full services. i of the one that has to tell them you need the ultrasound, stress test, but you will have to pay for it. i am so excited through the affordable care at that those patients will finally be able to get the full care they need and do not have to worry that he might have a heart attack on the way out the door because he cannot have the stress test. i will add also that while i am excited that we will finally be able to service the entire

community, i am worried we do not have enough clinicians to provide the services. i am hopeful there is foresight as far as making sure we have the clinicians we need. honestly money talks. until primary care is reimbursed comparable to the specialties, it will be a losing battle. >> we agree with you. we try to put some of the policy into the affordable care act. we did appear did areas to help deal with the cost of training for those that go into primary care. an emphasis to get more people trained in primary care. one of the issues we are not dealt with yet, which could be as early as this year, what to do with the position reimbursement structure under the medicare system? this is a huge issue. sustainable growth rate. there is general agreement that

we have to fix it, that the current system does not work. that we have to store it with the current reimbursement as the base. the good news is we can do it this year for a lot less cost than last year. the reason is health care costs are down. what do we replace it with? really put your finger on the challenge. we want to do two things on a replacement that would answer your question. we want to reward what you do here. we want to reward taking care of the patients, rather than taking care of the symptom. understand you could and taking care of a person's diabetes, you are dealing with their heart, with the blood pressure -- so much of this as interrelated and you are

managing the full services rather than taking a piecemeal and billing separately. that is a particular problem with hospital care in our country. how do we manage our person in a way that can reduce hospital emission rates and the unnecessary duplication of tests that take place and better care for the patient itself. that is one of the issues we're trying to deal with on the replacement here yen the other is how to deal with the relative value of services, particularly in primary care. there have been some studies go, and we rely basically on the groups to tell us how many hours it takes to give various services. that was an article showed for certain specialties the doctor would have had to work over 24 hours per day to equal the number of our worst

that were charged with. we have to get a better handle. the people that are being disadvantaged under the current system are primary care. that is what we have to fix. if we're going to get the right force mixed,t work with to have the right reimbursement structure. of thes not part affordable care act. a separate issue we clearly have to deal with. i will ask a question, if i might. those of you that have to figure out in advising people how to enroll in the exchanges, i do not know if you had a chance to take a look at the type of plans that have been approved, fferent levels of plans, major companies involved in different plants they are offering and how they'anpediatric outal, have you figured

what we can do to make your job a little bit easier or still too early to make that calculation as to the information? they're not going to have it rhetoric -- ready until close october 1. what keeps you up at night as to think about rolling people in these lands? >> the training has not even happened. >> let me just raise this question, how will you get it done and ready for october 1? jeff is in the same position i am trying to roll out this. he deals with the mentally ill population for most part. i will let him talk about this one. >> expanding resources.

but start with that premise. i am the executive director of mosaic beauty services. we are a behavioral health provider throughout maryland. we serve 26,000 per year. the benefits package worries me in my specialty, which is behavioral health is not sufficient. i think one of the discussions when we talk about access, we can enroll people, but we need to make sure we're making the folks that have been lost in the safety net before, maybe services acceptable and available in a way that they will. i think all of us about how we reach people about where they are. it is under bridge, but also, how the services are delivered. i like what you said earlier about how we manage the total health of the consumer in a way that is very important. practically with behavioral health.

coming in to see a psychiatrist is only the tip of the iceberg. there is a range of services from housing to employment to community-based care that are helpful to the person to maintain health care needs in all of that needs to be in play. to answer your question, first off, i really believe all the plans are not sufficient in terms of scope of coverage for mental health and addictions. the second addiction -- the second issue for me is we are not federally qualified. one of the bills of the excellence of mental health act that is moving through the senate, we would urge your support in anything you can do to move that particular piece of legislation, because going back to what the doctor said, we think there will be an enormous number of people that have not had full medicaid. people who have not been able to

access the total package of services. really, really hope we can move that forward. the other piece that is really exciting, and i particularly everyone, we're doing a lot of partnerships together to reach the unique population out there, but without the funding beyond improving is the ability to recruit and retain it professionals and mental health. behavioral health is a unique challenge in terms of keeping good people who want to do this work in the community. >> thank you for the observation. we have come a long way on mental-health parity in this country. affordable care act took another giant step forward. we're not there yet. part of it is we still did not not quiterstand -- do

understand how to bring about the type of parity that is necessary and how we do it in a cost-effective way. i think this is an evolutionary process and we need observations for how we should expand its services that are covered for mental health, addiction, counseling -- those types of areas where we know we have made strides but still have somewhere to go. we are proud about the expansion of facilities for mental health services. when you look at health centers. it has been an incredible expansion of services that are now available in communities that did not have services before. it has been very cost-effective. hospital admission rates of one down. a lot of this is to reduce the needs of reducing emergency room care because it is so

expensive and not very effective if you have an ongoing issue. if you can get to the community centers, we can do a better job on that. as far as facilities for construction, that has been very difficult to get at the national level. there has always been someone available, but not a lot. it is an area that we understand we still did not have enough facilities out there, but we do look for you to tell us what is the best way to expand capacity using a model that is working. we will look for ways to expand that. one of the nice things about the affordable care after is the health centers have bipartisan support. , lot of controversial issue particularly in a cost-effect of setting where you could provide comprehensive care, taking the

pressure off of emergency rooms. centers -- i must tell you, i think there is knowledge about the importance to continued expansion. i think the expansion and mental health services has been bipartisan. we think that will continue. >> collaboration really is the key to this. we cannot operate inside of any more. all of the health care organizations are meeting to work together to make this work. we are working with jeff on the that hastion already some of his clinicians' operating all told -- and baltimore medical systems. we are working and have been working with st. agnes hospital for a long time doing a lot of on site collaboration and had an

emergency room diversion program for a while. charley sutton is the vice chair of the board. -- shirley sutton. the cmo of union memorial hospital. we are in conversation right now, trying to collect -- create collaboration with union memorial to do the same thing. just want to say, first of all, senator card in, we're very proud of what you and the governor have done. agnes, we have. worked very hard over the past three years trying to figure out a way to manage people in the emergency room. i will say we have concerns that as more people get coverage, that some of that work will have

to either expand or look at how we can prove because we expect more people with the concern over primary care and access will actually flood the er rooms. care,g with us baltimore we think we will be able to manage people, not just with in the hospital doors, but outside in the community a lot better. that is one of the goals of st. agnes, saying once they leave, we still have ownership with the people that go out into the communities. >> mosaic and 14 other organizations are involved in the whole enterprise zones and west baltimore so we are involved in that process as well. have is ob rn we access as well as primary care.

i am wondering if there is any look at how we can expand or keep providers in the community available in the accessible as we expand, because quite a few were beginning to exit the delivery system so we have concerns about that. >> you are raising very important questions. let me tell you why we have to get it right. it is better management of care. we have to bring down the growth rate of health care costs. we all understand that. from a governmental point of view, the cost of medicare is a dominant factor in our budget. the state level is a dominant factor in the budgets. you have two choices to deal with the cost issues in the future. for government, one is to shift the cost. everyone will pay more.

that will hurt poor people, are particularly medicaid. medicare, seniors are already paying a large percentage of their income. you will shift it to the wrong people. or a more efficient system, which is exactly what we need to do. cut down on hospital readmission rates. we know we need to do that. care first has developed a plan where they are putting their own money on the table and saying if we can get better follow-up care, we will send nurses out and pay for it and save money and they do. we know we need to do a better job on three emissions from the point of view people following up care after they leave the hospital. it is more than that. how do you deal with a more holistic aspect of a person's health care? it is not just what we do under the affordable care act, how we handle physician reimbursement rates. the governor is looking at a

model for hospital reimbursement rate that is more visionary from the point of view of overall health care results. these are ways you save money and bring down the cost and get better quality care. so we want to reduce the people in emergency rooms, but you do not have a health center and a person has an insurance card and they want to get services, where are they going to go? you're absolutely right, that is a concern we have. how do we make sure that does not happen? we are in the midst of a reinvention. it has to be completely different from how we of done it in the past. these collaborations we're talking about is key. hospitals are reinventing themselves because they have become cost centers. we have to start reaching out into the community. how we provide the continuity of

care? that is our challenge. i think one thing -- it is almost like you are riding the bike while trying to fix it at the same time. so we still have revenue needs that keep the wheels running 365, and yet, we're in the midst of the reinvention for the population manager. we are the only major behavioral health center in central baltimore -- central baltimore, and we are packed to the gills every day with people waiting to get into outpatient unit, hospitalization. we could not be busier resolute -- fairly when it comes down to it. so there is a lot of opportunity, but the challenge largely is the manpower.

having enough providers, including extended providers, to provide some of the care. i will talk about it, but i do not know how prominently it will be spoken about, because i think when you look at the number of folks we will care for in this way, and appropriately so, we do not have the care providers to do that. bns had to make a pot -- painful policy decision where we had to longstanding positions on the staff but they did not to pay for primary care providers and had to let them go. a point in time when we need to access capacity, we cannot get paid for the stuff under medicaid or under commercial insurance. they will not pay for physician assistants so we had to downsize. we have actually managed to hold on to both and put them into other roles because we were

created for how to make that happen. they are no longer providing access to primary care services that are needed in the community. think it does represent one point of access that we have not talked about much here. so many of these folks either only use it as -- the emergency department as their primary use of health insurance or use it frequently. i think the more effort we can put into getting people hooked into the system, i think that will be a real value-added type of thing. >> i think work force is a huge issue. that is why we put a lot of attention on allied health professionals. we believe our nurses, therapists, technicians can do a here. the services the general is if the state

license the person to do the work, the federal government participates. we are having difficulty on that part. should not be a part in maryland. if you are having a problem, let us know and we will see if we can help you on the reimbursement side. ave, i think, done a fairly good job in expanding the health centers from the point of view is there is a limit to how fast you can expand. i acknowledge we do not have doing aut we are project three of the incredible increase in capacity and providing community services. i think moving forward we're still at a time where we do not know exactly what will happen on october 1. what i would ask, and i know i speak for the senator. she has been a leader on the delivery system reform issue.

her committee has done a lot of work on that. we compared bashar talking about the people for the need to enroll. important to very your federal officials, that feedback. i know that would be helpful. if you would let us know that. if we could use you as a resource. jay knows i have had a health advisory group for awhile. i am fortunate to live so close to washington. i can get back to talk to people all the time.

your experience will be very important. on january 1.end we need to know what adjustments we should make. it is the highest priority. have are a lot of -- they some administrative leeway. influence on how those decisions will come out. your input on that would be very helpful to me also. if you could let us know how things are going. towill do everything we can make sure this is as seamless as we can make it and as few people as possible fall through the continued to work to expand the capacity as well

as those that are participating in the system. jay, thank you very much. >> thank you. to separately from this roundtable, i would like to call the attention of everyone in the room to something that we have an opportunity to celebrate today. been a member of our board of trustees for almost 30 years. which is harde, for me to imagine. see was associated with the first version of the center when it was on bank street a couple of blocks away. barbara mikulski's parents albert wcare at the

medical center. clara was recently notified that she was a points of light winner. she will be recognized for her work in baltimore because she has been a board member continuously since that point in 1984 but we started in also because every day when patients get off at the elevators walking into the these may be - th- people that are new to the united states. we serve so many immigrants and refugees. the first person they get to see generally is clara. she spends hours and hours at the center and making people

feel at ease for the services. she has been energetic and is a smiling face. she does not speak the 40 or 50 languages. she speaks the language of welcome and she does that with style and with grace. into they just walked room so they could celebrate with her. i think you had a couple of words you wanted to say. then you will be presented with your plaque. seat?n't you take my [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

thank you. just a few words. t won i keep you long -- i won' keep you long. thank you for the honor. husband for his support all 29 years. i do not drive. he was my chauffeur. staff,the board and always working to stay true to our mission statement. it has been a great experience to work at the front desk. i have been here two years voluntarily. as a volunteer at the front desk and working side-by-side with

our staff. this is a wonderful center. becausewonderful center the people here work so hard to make it a wonderful center. it is about the people here, the staff here. i share this award with all of you who work at baltimore medical systems. thank you for this honor. but also thank you for the people who have worked so hard to make this happen. i did not know until a few weeks ago. but thank you. [applause] --ra chanceot often i get a to stand in for one of my heroes, and that is former president george h w bush. i had a chance to work with him.

incredible leader an incredible human being. he has given so much back to the community. i am honored to stand in for him today. he apologize but he had a little thing to do. we have been talking about workforce and whether we have the right people in place to provide the services. you are the front line. for people to be able to get quality, affordable health care, they have to be able to come through that door. they have to be excepted and have confidence they will be treated with the care that they expect. you have provided that. you have done that as a volunteer, which is just remarkable from the point of you it if we could clone would make life a lot easier.

how do you get people into the system? gotten people into the system because of the manner in which you show that welcome language that jay referred to. we do thank you so much. -- an have all the doctors thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you. >> why don't we do this officially? there we go. >> thank you so much. thank you. thank you.

>> this is yours. >> thank you. appreciate it. >> thanks, everybody. we will do a short tour. you are welcome if you want to go along. if not, thank you for being here.

>> the association for unmanned vehicle systems is holding its annual conference today here in washington. be sure to join us at 1:00 eastern for a panel discussion for that event. that will be live once again starting at 1:00 p.m. here on c- span. we will focus on gay marriage issues beginning at 5:45 eastern. the supreme court decisions were reviewed. here is a brief look. >> i had an interesting experience a couple of days ago. i was renting a car and filling out the paperwork.

they said are you the only driver? do they have to be here? married."ou are "i am married." cha-ching. it is my first kind of benefit. "i will put your husband's name on it." "it is my wife." "of course. pouse.'"ut down 's "change your forms." we are so used to using the word "partner" and having that feeling about that. it feels kind of bad and second- class. i am not a lawyer.

to ber expired -- aspired a partner. it has been working out pretty well. it really does change. rings toots of the commemorate our marriages. the dayly felt calmer we got married. i felt my blood pressure went down a little bit. it is the real deal. our families are going to understand it better. we can stop fighting before we are in court about it. i felt more legitimate in this world because in our society marriage means something. >> those remarks from the recent san francisco bar event on gay marriage.

eventn watch the entire at 5:45 eastern on c-span today. we will talk with journalists about the tax implications of the supreme court's decision on the defense of marriage act. we will look at states that face challenge to their same-sex marriage laws. we will take your calls and your facebook comments. join us tonight from or in prime time. be oncus tonight will three books recommended by our viewers. withll begin at 8:00 p.m. "bunker hill." "bolivar." --ight >> cerro was very much a

helpmate -- sarah was very much a helpmate. she would read the newspapers and underlying passengers. she was a regular fixture in the gallery. enact a memorial thanking him for his service. polk lefts coo congress, congress was so divided. wrote a lengthy poem. >> the encore presentation of continuesies" king th tonight on c-span. >> grover norquist was a guest

this morning on "washington journal." this is about 45 minutes. host: we want to welcome back grover norquist, president for the americans for tax reform. thank you for being here. the front page of "the new york times," the administration decided to delay the limits on out-of-pocket expense for one year. what is your reaction? guest: clearly this bill was put we areer very sloppily. finding all sorts of problems. baucus max from montana says the whole thing is a train wreck. the president has admitted that they businesses cannot deal with mandates. he is giving them a year's grace. it is not clear that the president has that authority in

the law. he is not going to enforce the law that is there. we have another cap, this is supposed to be one of the benefits that are going to stay down. that is going to be delayed for one year. what is to stop it from being delayed for one year for the next 50 years? one of the things i have been working with in the americans for tax is supporting the idea that legislative form has been put in with 50 cosponsors to delay all of obamacare for one year. it is not ready for prime time. small businesses do not get the delay. big businesses do. individuals do not. there is another piece to it that is not working. let us delay it a year and take a look at what needs to be reformed.

host: democrats and obama saying that was a no go. what is the strategy here? guest: i think the president said during his press conference in normal timeshat -- these ar you go to congress and ask for a delay. these are not normal times. congress doesn't ever do with the president wants, going back 200 years. that said, one congress and the house of representatives passed a law to make the delay he wanted legal, he either wants to enforce or not enforce the law. it is a very odd assertion. we do have some situations, like thecontinuing resolution.or debt ceiling. the president keeps driving the debt up high. he took two and a half trillion in additional debt in 2011.now we spent all of that. congress can say that if you want the debt ceiling increase, we can do that.

we just made you stop some of the crazier levels of spending. that is $2.5 trillion spending restraint over a decade. as a result, we are seeing some reduction in the runaway growth. we have made some progress. we need to do something similar with obamacare. delay the limitation, the massive new spending, all of the regulations, delay them for a year. let's take a look at where we are and then move forward. host: that is different than what senator ted cruz and republicans are saying, which is, under these negotiations, we want the president to defund the health care law. >> i am in favor of defunding the health-care law.

i do not think the president can fix it. i do not think he ever intended to pass a completely flawed bill. the majority of the american people think we should get rid of this and replace it with something that is consumer friendly. it is not wage and price controls like richard nixon and world war ii. that does not work. for 2000 years wage and price controls have ended poorly wherever they have been tried. what we need to do is get rid of obamacare, get in a plan that responds to consumers, and that will work. that said, the president of the united states says one success is passing obamacare. he is unlikely to agree to give the whole thing up. what i think he might be willing to do, because he is alreadyhalf

pregnant, announcing that he is going to delay big businesses for participation in the mandate -- not small businesses, that big businesses will get a year grace. now costs are going to run wild for another year. all this other stuff is going to happen. i am in a very strong position for the american people. you have agreed that you're not ready for prime time, you have agreed that this is a train wreck, democrats see this as a problem. let's put this off for a year. this is not humiliating for him to say we will take a look at it. giving the whole thing up, he would rather give up his kidney. host: is it worth shutting down the government for that?

guest: it is the president who has talked about shutting down the government. on the question of delaying obamacare for a year, if we give you the debt ceiling for the continuing resolution, and with that you can delay obamacare, not just the parts for your friends but all of it -- he is given labor unions grants. everybody else has to do it but you do not have to do it. his political donors and friends are getting interceptions.-- getting exceptions. we really have to have one law for everybody in the country. host: this is a piece in "the new york times" this morning -- deciding not to hold town hall meetings during this august ,ecess, and when they do

congressional offices go through great lengths to not disclose where and when they will take place, calling their supporters -- letting their supporters know at the last minute at the room fills up with guest: faces. this has gone on for years. i arrived in orlando in 2010. a town hall meeting was called in a union office. they had filled 95% of it with their political supporters and then opened the doors to the next five percent, who could come in for town hall meeting. several thousand people showed up and surrounded the whole building. i was done there for another project that day. the nightly news had helicopters and what looked like a castle being stormed. it was amazing.

i think it is a good idea for people to have as many town hall meetings and open meetings as you can. there is a lot of stuff you can do on teleconferencing. host: which is the way many members are going, to hold these town hall meetings over the phone. the article points out that other tea party organizations are upset with their republicans and democrats that are not holding town hall meetings. they want to express frustration over the health-care law to the ir members of the congress and urge them to go along with some of the strategy in the gop, which is to not continue resolution unless obama care is defunded. senator jim demint, their group holding come eating them face of what is happening. what do you make of the heritage action, the strategy they have taken under senator jim demint? do you think he is playing an appropriate role in this?

some gop colleagues complained about the work they are doing. host: it is dramatically different than what it was a year ago. 10 years ago from now -- host: what do you think? guest: i think there is a challenge. think tanks and activist groups put forward tax reform. we put forward the suggestions of calm for -- we have the majority members of the house of representatives who made a commitment to their voters. harry reid certainly hasn't taken it. it is a commitment to the people of their states. it has been a very strong firewall against higher taxes and limits to how much overspending can happen in washington.we need more.

it is a good guard rail. i am not in favor of outside groups explaining to the house and senate what tactics they use. i am more interested in the principles and overall strategy. the report opens in the house everybody, they are completely committed to dealing obamacare, replacing it with something that works. the president mocks how many votes they have had to amend it. he has signed a six bills that amends his legislation. he shouldn't make fun of the fact that people are trying to fit it for him now that they realize it needs fixing. six signed bills republicans put forward to say, "we have a

problem, let's fix it." host: let us get the phone calls. a republican caller in new jersey, you're on the air with grover norquist. guest: have you voted yet? caller: i did not vote today or yesterday. i have been working. let us get to the facts, the train wreck the democrats are worried about is not that obama care was going to cause the american people. they're worried that obama care is going to cost the 2014 election to democrat. they are worried about getting reelected. you've touched good facts about fundraising. 80% of democrat fundraising is from big businesses, contrary to popular belief that immigrants-- democrats like to say they are not in league with big business.

if this goes through big business will collapse all of their fundraising. host: grover norquist? guest: you're quite correct that -- at of focuses on the 2014 lot of the focus is on the 2014 elections. that is why i think we have an opportunity to get a one-year delay in the taxes and regulations and mandates for obamacare. all of the parts of obamacare -- if we delay it for a year, it is good because the bill as structured is damaging to the country. this is not good to mess around with people's access to quality healthcare. that is what the president does. --that is what the present law does. i think we can delay it for a year am a partly because so many democrats recognize they do not want to be running in 20014, particularly in the senate. every single democrat in the senate voted for this.mary

landrieu runs in louisiana as if she is some kind of moderate democrat. she is a yes vote for obama on everything. obama has been trying to crush the oil industry. she has done nothing to protect it. the state has been badly damaged by president obama's policies against oil and energy production. mary landrieu stands there and does nothing. she has to run for reelection. not only has she been attacking louisiana's major industry, but she was also the person who gave them this mess of obamacare. there are a whole series of challenges. i think that is why it is possible to get a year's delay in obamacare. i think only focus on the career, at the american people say we can do better. it does leave the door open.

some democrats could step back from the mistake they made when they voted for a bill that they had not ever read. host: why do they keep saying the americans did not want the affordable care act when he was elected on that? guest: obama beat romney. there are a whole series of issues on the table there. if it had been a referendum on obama care, romney would be president. he did not make it one. he has had something similar to this in massachusetts. it also has many challenges and problems. despite his other assets and

virtues, it made him a flawed candidate for the presidency at a time when the tweeter suggest it would have been a powerful issue. it was in 2010. it could be in 2012 of a republican would have stood up and said i told you it was a bad idea. romney could not do that. host: what was the last large piece of legislation that required no editing after being passed? guest: there should not be 3000 page pieces of legislation. one of the things the republicans said is that they would put bills online for several days before they get voted on. they have largely been able to do that since boehner became speaker. now that we have the web and internet, it is easy to put it online. speaker gingrich was the first to put all legislation online.

bills that were introduced went online. it used to be that law firms would get paid a lot of money to go down and xerox these bills and then they and their clients would have access to something in the bill, but someone in kansas would have no way of getting their hands on it. i am very pleased that the republic in who put forth the ryan budget plan have written it down, voted for it repeatedly. it is in writing. you can go online and see what the reforms due to save the welfare and entitlement so they stay there and do not go bankrupt. having an open system or you say here is what you are doing in here is what he will pass is better than when obama ran.

he said i'm going to do really cool stuff and it will not cost anything. that is not true. if he had to write it down, he might not have gotten elected. host: june in wisconsin. caller: hi. first of all, the deficit is going down. it is just amazing to hear you and so many other republicans, including john boehner, who says spending is out of control. the deficit is going down thanks to president obama. nobody is acknowledging that. one on the republican side. it is also untrue that the republicans did not say but shut down the government. the president was only stating what they said. they said it. they mean it. they are proud of it. one more thing.

as far as taxes and america, how about talking to your friends on the republican side about getting that american jobs act passed? anything to help the president look good is bad for america. that is insane.host: we will leave it there. guest: the republicans in the house have passed more than one dozen bills to help create jobs that have not seen the light of day in the senate. it is unfortunate. it has cost us. this nation has technically been in recovery since six months into the obama presidency. we have been in recovery since july 2009. it is the weakest recovery in the history of this country at least since the end of world war ii.

we have been growing at an average of 2.2% a year. that is french levels. if we did it at reagan levels and incentive spending more and taxing more and regulating more, he reigned in regulation.limited cutgrowth of government and marginal tax rates. we have millions more americans at work. there are millions more out of work because the resident took a high tax, big government european-style economic policy rather than the traditional lower tax, less spending, less regulation. that is why we are in that situation. we talked about the presiden's jobs bill. that is what he calls it. it is another solyndra. it is like the previous stimulus package which saw the lousy economic numbers that we have still to this day.

we have a very weak economy.you said, why are you complaining about spending? the deficit is getting better. it is about $600 billion. it used to be a trillion.yeah? better than what? better what it was when the democrats had the house? republican said no to the massive spending increases. we are having a discussion about tax here in d.c. they want to introduce marginal tax rates. it is 35%. the european average is 25%. stupider than europe is not where you want to be on your tax policy. that is the average.

the canadians are around 17.5%. we are around 35%. which side of the border do you put it? we need to have full expensing for all business investment.not long depreciation schedules. we and north korea have worldwide tax systems for the american individuals who work overseas, we tax them as if they live in boston rather than in sweden or paris where they get taxed there and then they get taxed by us. a rate no higher than 25%. that is tax reform. the president just wants higher our line for democrats. caller: can you hear me? ok. i was hoping you would look back to the first segment of the show.

had all these horror stories. guest: there are a lot of taxes in the health care bill. i have a list.caller: healthcare is a moral issue. ok? we are a christian country. take care of the weak and the poor. guest: actually, we are in the favor of religious liberty. caller: morality is the word we are talking about here. i am go ahead.caller: sorry. do you think it is proper for a person, ceos making $200 million $50 million a year? guest: first of all, people should only make what the guys in the company what they are worth. some ceos are paid too muc,

absolutely. some tend to go bankrupt if they're paying people more than some sellers when people play baseball or football are pretty high. i think there has been a lot of overpayments. i want the government decided how much you or anybody else can earn as a living. a team can go bankrupt if it spends too much money. that is their problem. i do not want the government telling them the pitcher is not worth what they're willing to pay them. caller: good morning. we have the best healthcare system in the world. i am amazed at all the steps given by the liberals on our ranking in world health care. leaders do not go to australia, cuba, england.

one reason that the cost is expensive is because of managed care. you created an industry in between that charges and raises and pays for all of their benefits. the other thing is state mandates. you go to missouri, they want freckles removed. you go to illinois, they want hair transplants. you keep adding that all up. the republicans, and i am a republican all my life, they do not have an alternative. i do. hr 2300. it extends tax deductions for employers. reforms medical liability laws. big deal. what does this mean today to the

average citizen? guest: one of the reasons canadians come here for surgeries is because it is what obamacare does, deny certain care. you're too old, you do not need any replacement. to have those kind of decisions. the caller earlier was talking about the morality of healthcare. telling people they cannot have access to healthcare is a little bit of challenge. it is the only cost reduction that exists in obamacare.they have price controls and wage controls and denial of care.

i would rather the market get prices down like when you buy and sell computers. more people producing, more people getting more opportunity. that is the way to keep cost down. host: they're pushing for an attainable plan.this is something the senate can pass and the president can sign. those working with the johnny isakson of georgia. they have been meeting seeking ways to replace the deep nondiscretionary so-called sequestration cuts. some of these guys are worried about the impact it is having on defense. guest: one of the things if you go to the budget, sequestration is actually limiting the growth

of government. it is working as it was supposed to work. the caller said the deficit is going down. it is because of sequestration which the president now wants to undo. when the president needed to increase the debt total by 2.5 trillion to get him from 2011 until after the 2012 election, and we are now there, he wanted to buy himself time. the republican said if you want a debt ceiling increase of a trillion you have to reduce spending by a trillion in the same piece of legislation. we have $2.5 trillion in spending cuts. the president did this because he thought the republicans would

never allow the restraint on pentagon spending. republicans are committed to having a reasonably priced cost effective defense as well as every other part of the government.the pentagon is not sacrosanct. the president just had some cartoon image of what republicans are for. they always want more for the military. you want a strong military, keep the canadians on that side of the border. you're not going to waste any money. that is nonsense. host: senator graham, mccain, is it a mistake for them to be negotiating with the president because of their concerns over defense spending? guest: always talk to people. talk to the president. the president says he wants tax

increases so he can spend more money. he has no interest on spending more money on national defense. he wants to spend less money. he wants to raise taxes to avoid spending restraint. he wants to break the sequester to spend more money and raise taxes to spend more money. i think it is brave and commendable the handful of senators that are republican. they say raise taxes so we can spend more money, how about that?senator mccain is not going to agree to that. lindsey graham is not going to agree with that. we went through this in 2010, 2011, 2012. the president keeps coming back. why don't instead of reducing spending growth, why don't we raise taxes? he says no and they ask the question a different way.

host: what are the odds the government shut down this fall? guest: i do not think it will. last time the president came to the table and agreed with spending restraint. the law of the land is sequester. the president is trying to change the law. he cannot flick away. the sequester is the law. he cannot spend more than the sequester. do you want a continuing resolution? i think we need to delay obamacare for a year. the president is focused on breaking the sequester so he can spend more.he wants to raise taxes to spend more. it is a little bit like a teenage boy on a prom date. he keeps asking the same question in different ways. every time you think he has dropped his focus, he just asked the same question a different way. insteadhave tax increases an

of the sequester? you cannot. host: we will go to steve next. independent caller. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: free market does not work in healthcare. the insurance companies make ioney by denying care. personally experienced that. i injured my knee at work. a year or so later i injured my knee again. i needed an mri and blue cross blue shield would not cover me because of a pre-existing condition.i had to pay for the mri. that was not cheap. republicans are afraid this law is going to work. guest: well. as you know, caller, the senate finance chair has referred to this as a crackup, a train wreck.

so, the idea that republicans are afraid of wage and price controls for the first times in world history are going to work and provide better quality, i do not think anybody stays up at night. you were not denied care. you got the care. if you were in britain, it would not be legal for you to go get that mri that you said the insurance company said they would not pay for. harry reid, a guy from nevada, he announced he wants a single- payer plan of government office, a post office that runs all the hospitals in the country like they have in canada or britain. one big monopoly that makes all the decisions. when they tell you know, it is no. it is not know you can go buy it somewhere else, it is no.

that is how they reduce the cost of health care, by telling people in certain ages, i am sorry about that knee because you will have to live with it. it is those kinds of decisions but the only way they can keep prices down is to have wage and price control. they do not have free market solutions. the reason why computers cost less every year and other products cost less is because we have the free market. host: democratic caller.hi, john. caller: i have one comment and two questions. i am hoping i can get through them. i am one of those people.i know that you are not an evil guy. i believe that you are pushing for policies you really believe in.guest: thank you.caller: this has to do with the

affordable health care act. it is up to the viewers that when you say that most will are against the aca, you look at these very frequently. right now it is around 30% of the people say it is ok. around 30% people have thought thatas not gone far enough. leaves out 40% of the people. the majority of the people do not like it. i think it is very dishonest of people, and this is what you did, to find that most people do not like it. a very large number of people do not like it because it did not go far enough. guest: you are right. when you look at polling data you always have to say what is the second question or thought? they would rather have it repealed and not have it or

continue with it. right now we are not into a time when we are about to repeal it today or tomorrow. we do need to delay the implementation for a year. it is not ready for prime time. it is clearly not working as written. the president admits this. he is giving special favors to his friends by saying the law will not apply to you, ok? we do not do that in the united states. european monarchies say the law will not apply to the aristocracy. this applies to everyone. they should have to live under the law. that is not a distinction we make in the united states. that is why i think that the obamacare mandates and taxes should go away forever. at a minimum, let's put it off for a year, find out what the

president thinks he's doing, how it is supposed to work, the president admitted for his friend the plan does not work. host: brooklyn, new york, robert. caller: good morning. i think the caller before is right. his heart is in the right place. you have to pick a fight with ben bernanke. he was deflating american dollars.let everything go. deflation. i have one more question. it was early before they could get this covered.i would like you to answer the question for me please. guest: because of the law obam

care has taxes and regulations on certain sized companies and people that work a certain number of hours. companies have been hiring fewer people. when he asked them why they are hiring and why you are not, the cost of obamacare is one reason why unemployment is as high as it is. then there are also hiring people part-time. the number of part-time hires versus full-time is unusual and it appears to be given by the mistakes in the obamacare law. that does affect employment. as to the money supply, we ought to have the dollar. the government ought to keep it the same and stop monkeying around with printing large amounts of it. host: max baucus, the chairman of the finance committee in the

senate, dave camp are traveling around the country trying to bring to the forefront the idea of overhauling the tax code. what do you think the prospects are?guest: it will happen. the question is when.the president keeps saying that he only wants to live with a bill with a trillion dollars and higher taxes. as long as harry reid runs a cynic, he wants $975 billion and higher taxes. it is almost a trillion dollars in higher taxes. he will not allow it to come to the floor revenue natural. until harry reid retires, there will not be tax reform. all they want is a tax increase. host: immigration reform is important

-- guest: immigration reform is important to the country. when people say the immigration bill, we say is so often it is like a platitude. it is true. the reason why we are 300 million people and a world power and a free country is because we are a country of immigrants. we are not all the same color, religion, or come from the same countries. we have one thing uniting us, it is the constitution. there are other countries. in germany, if you are not german you do not ever get in. even other countries it can take a long time to ever feel parts of the country. you have the wrong last name are too many vowels at the end of your name or too many consonants. that is what makes the country great and strong and makes this a world power. it is also the reason why we are

growing population where european countries are starting to shrink. japan is looking forward to serious declines in total numbers. china is going to be declining soon in the number of people of working age. eventually in total numbers because they are not having children. second, they have no ability because of their culture to do immigration. we do immigration well. we whine about it but we do a better than everybody. host: have you made that argument to steve king? guest: i have talked to a lot of republicans. steve king disappointed a lot of people with the comments that were unpleasant and talking about certain ethnic groups. that is unfortunate. that gives the position he is trying to put forward grave disservice when he does that. that should never be done by anybody. host: disservice to the

republican party? guest: no. they are clear that they are off in the corner. the modern republican party is not there. when that gets said it gets let down very hard. the republican party can and should represent all americans of all backgrounds. you want to be free to take care of your family and go to whatever church or synagogue or mosque you want to.do with life as you wish to. it is a free country. that is the point of the constitution. we do not have a list of things you're supposed to not do. we have a list of things the government is not supposed to do. you can do anything you want in and the government cannot do everything at once. a very short list of things that they are supposed to do competently. we're working on them to only do the things on the list. host: eric holder yesterday

announces that he would like to see reduced sentencing for low- level nonviolent drug criminals. he isis the headline -- quoting you. guest: i said that. host: why are you critical of the administration for making this move? guest: holder has been attorney general for five years now. the challenge of mandatory minimums is one that republicans and democrats in congress have been working on. i work with a group called right on crime. i would recommend everyone google the work. it is conservatives who are focused on reforming prisons and the judicial system. do we need 4000 federal crimes? 4000 federal crimes?

nobody knows the 4000 laws are what they mean. a lot of them are paperwork. you can go to jail. we also need to ask ourselves do --u want a guy who brought his who robbed a bank at 20 in prison at 75, does this make us safer? democrats like older do not have any credibility when it comes to a lifetime of saying crime is be punished, criminals must be punished and our goal is to reduce total crime him not to ignore it. but to punish it and make sure it doesn't happen again. how do we do this in a way that is cost effective? do you really want to spend $50,000 a year in california to put people in prison? who should be in prison and who should be under house arrest? who should be under heavily supervised parole. there are ways to drop the

costs. holder said this is the law and we are going to avoid it. no. rand paul and patrick leahy had legislation to change and give more flexibility. if you do not like the law, you amend it. you bring a bill and change it. you do not have a discount somewhere saying we will ignore the law. that is not the way you do sell. -- do stuff. the president sets a bad example for the rest of the cabinet officers when he decides not to obey the law on health care. holder should not do it this way. he should be supportive.that would have been nice and reform mandatory minimums. host: thank you very much for your time this morning. i appreciate it. guest: good to be with you.

>> >> coming up in just over an hour, we will go to the association for the unmanned vehicles and drone makers. live at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. coming up later this afternoon, the topic of a marriage beginning at 5:45 p.m. eastern. a panel from the san francisco bar association reviewed the supreme court decisions that came down earlier this year related to gay marriage. here is a quick portion. >> as you recall, the strategy they relied upon in the political campaign and in court as well is to cast a lesbian and gay couples as different, and even deviant, and certainly not a good enough to be parents. with our four

children and all of the others that we love dearly and all of the others that we want to help, that was too much to tolerate. we watched the ads again, listened to them, talk to the judge about how we were not worthy. and our children were there and they heard that as well. it was a really good experience. i hope someday, the video is unsealed and you can all hear what was in that courtroom. even though they wanted to all convince the judge that they were right, they had no evidence and could not back of their plight -- their claims. witnesses wehe two had compared to the 17 witnesses did so well. people are healthier, happier, and enriched in many cases and having the option to be marriage -- in marriage, whether

you choose to be in marriage is helpful. that was helpful on our side. >> again, from recent san francisco board association event. you can see it at 5:45 p.m. eastern here on c-span. and we will follow that with a live town hall meeting on the subject. we will talk with journalists and others about the tax and will alsoications consider the legal landscape in states that have challenges to their same sex laws. we will also take your phone calls, tweeds, and facebook comments. tonight, the focus is on three books for -- recommended by our viewers. at 8:00 p.m., bunker hill, a city, a siege, a revolution. it political

peeves about simone boulevard. and at 9:50 p.m., the book gettysburg. tonight -- himarah would help throughout his political career. she would help him write his speeches and critique them for him. she would read the newspapers daily and was a regular fixture in doubt -- in the gallery in congress. when james k. polk left congress to run for governor of tennessee, the congress was so widely divided they refused to do that a number of politicians wrote poems in honor of sarah at that time she left. lengthytory wrote a palm lamenting the loss of sarah

polk to washington society. >> first lady's continues tonight at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the room at congressional hearings, white house event, the briefings and conferences, and offer complete gavel-to-gavel coverage of the u.s. house as a pot -- as a public service of private industry. the cable-greeted by tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable provider. >> former secretary of state hillary clinton called on members of the american bar association to support the voting rights at the aba annual meeting in san francisco yesterday. she talked about the supreme court's decision to strike down a -- a key section of the voting rights act. she received the aba medal, the highest honor the organization

gives, for service in the cause of american justice. this is just over half an hour. veryank you, thank you much. thank you all very much. thank you. [applause] thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman, members of the house of delegates, incoming president, friends and colleagues, long time members of the aba. i am so deeply grateful to you for this award. havehumbled by those who received it in the past.

to join their company, and in some small measure, to canoe the work that the aba has championed. i know that earlier you're from -- you heard from attorney general holder about important issues in our criminal justice system, and this afternoon, i want to raise another such issue -- voting rights group another area -- rights. another area where the aba has been active all of my professional life. to share some perspectives from four decades as a lawyer, a legislator, diplomat about why voting rights are so foundational to our democracy and our future. underscorei want to that this honor from the american bar association means so much to me because i know the work that the aba does. it is hard to believe that it has been 25 years since then aba president robert mccreight

called me in my office in little rock and suggested that i chair the first commission on women in the profession. he was very persuasive. we held hearing after hearing, recording the experiences of women lawyers, judges, and professors. in fact, number of my colleagues from that first commission are here with us this afternoon. no one at the aba's ever suggested that we ever is back, go slow, avoid the hard truths. i am proud that the aba helped start the movement for gender equality in the legal profession. that it continues to be at the forefront today with initiatives to ensure that equal work really does mean equal pay. i want to applaud president and fellows leadership in combating human trafficking at home and

abroad. so many other issues where america's lawyers can and should lead the way. i am well aware, as you are, that some people -- hard to believe -- see lawyers as part of the problem in our society, but i learned very early on that lawyers are often a central to- --he central essential to the solution to any problem we face. as secretary of state, i saw the contributions that the aba makes run the world. your rule of law initiatives is helping to improve governance, deliver justice, and promote human rights and more than 60 countries. a few years ago, i had the chance to visit members of the azerbaijan women's bar association who were fighting domestic violence, child marriage, and other abuses in the country without a strong tradition of the rule of law or a vibrant society.

-- vibrant civil society. the aba's support made an enormous difference to these women. the world justice project, launched by former aba president bill not come, has newcome, has- bill developed a rule of law index, which i found very helpful. it measures governments around the world based on for universal principles -- first, that governments, peoples, and corporations should all be accountable under the law -- second, that laws must be clear, publicize, stable, and just -- third, that laws are enacted and enforced fairly and efficiently -- and forth, diverse, competent, and independent lawyers and judges deliver justice under the law. these are a central concepts for any healthy democracy, including our own. although we use the term rule of law govern society, but also only about howt

law governs society, but also how law serves society. i mean this in at least two ways. first, that law can be an instrument for improving people's lives in addition to adjudicating their disputes and shaping their government. second, that the law belongs to the people, that its power flows from their consent and participation. this is about making the law a real and vibrant, as opposed to arid and abstract. it is also about ensuring while the law should never privilege the rights of some citizens over those of others, we should not be afraid to privilege justice over injustice. as i witnessed as secretary of state over four tumultuous years the search for justice drives people to stand up

against dictatorships, corruption, and oppression, -- and not rule and the rule of law is most powerful tool in human history to deliver this justice. as a young law student, i volunteered at the new haven legal assistance association. although the work i did there sometimes felt one million miles away from the classroom where we debated precedents and procedures, it helped me see lawyers giving life to the concepts in my textbooks, using them to solve real problems, facing people every day, and it inspired me to later take a job as the first director of the university of arkansas school of law's legal clinic and say so, arkansas. -- in fayetteville, ark.. while there, i surf provides students providing assistance to the -- to poor families and

prison inmates. not everyone at that time thought this was an appropriate use of the law. i remember there was one judge in particular, and maybe some arkansas members will remember or have appeared before him, judge butt, who insisted my students qualify their indigent clients under a 19th-century statute that permitted free legal assistance only when a person's assets were worth no more than $10 and the close on his or her back. i told the judge, that was an impossible standard for anyone to meet who owned an old car or even a television or anything else worth more than $10, but he held firm. so i went to the arkansas bar association, and argued that the law should be changed. how could we deny legal assistance when it could help save hungry children from poverty or protect battered women from abuse or stop unscrupulous bosses from

exploiting their workers? the judge made his case, and the state bar association's executive committee listen to our arguments and then endorsed repealing the statute. later president carter appointed me to the legal services corporation, one of the great honors of my life. once again, there were skeptics. we had to convince congress that using the law to help for families was just and necessary cause. it was worth it. we tripled our funding. we were able to pay thousands of lawyers to work on behalf of more than one million poor clients. we help families avoid eviction, fight discrimination, receive their earned federal benefits. often in those days and many times since, i thought of something that eleanor roosevelt said about human rights. she reminded us that they begin

in small places close to home, in neighborhoods, schools, factories, and farms, and there is no better tool to expand and enforce human rights than the law. we can and should use it to help more people in more places live up to their god-given potential. the law, after all, belongs to the people, not the other way around. it is no accident that the first words of our constitution are "we the people." our nation was founded on the idea that power derives from public consent, not divine right or force of arms or discriminatory dictate. o'connore sandra day put it, what was revolutionary when it was written and what continues to inspire the world today is that the constitution put governance into the hands of the people. this is the basis for america's social compact, and while we

may and certainly will debate amongst ourselves about the role and size of government, americans of every party and striped cherished government of the people, by the people, and for the people. yet you know better than most that it is easy to say it. here is where it gets trickier. if people are truly to own the law under which they live, they must have the access and information to understand those laws to participate and have confidence in their government and benefit from its policies. principles founding and the many ways our constitution has protected individual liberties, we do -- let's admit it -- have a history of shutting people out. african-americans, women, gays and lesbians, people with disabilities, and throughout our history, we have found too many ways to divide and exclude

people from their ownership of the law and protection under the law. one of the first jobs i had after law school was with the children's defense fund. another pioneering lawyer, mary wright aleman, wanted to find out why a school enrollment figure was so much lower than the census of school-aged children would have suggested. as part of the nationwide survey, i went door to door in new bedford, massachusetts, asking whether the family had any children not in school we discovered that children staying home to care for younger siblings while parents worked or even dropping out to work themselves in order to support their families. we mostly found kids with disabilities who were not attending school. we found blind and deaf children, children in wheelchairs, children with developmental disabilities, children whose families cannot

afford the treatment they needed. i remember meeting a girl in a wheelchair on the small back porch of her house where we sat and talked under the grape arbor. she so wanted to go to school, but like many, she was excluded because at that time, the public schools could not or would not accommodate children like her. acrossith many partners our country, we collected the data, and we brought to washington. congress eventually enacted legislation declaring that every child in our country is entitled to an education, including those with disabilities. the struggle to bring people inside, to give them real ownership of the law, is as old as our republic. this summer, we are marking the 50th anniversary of dr. king's march on washington. the165th anniversary of seneca falls convention.

signposts on our long march to a more perfect union, and occasions to celebrate the progress we have made. this is also a time to refocus on the remaining challenges. confidence in most of our important institutions has fallen to historic lows, even as our need for solid footing in a rapidly changing world has never been greater. skepticism of authority has been part of our national character since the pilgrims, and complaining about government is a treasured american pastime. but it is troubling that many americans continue to lose faith and trust in the press, in banks, and sports heroes, and the clergy, just about every institution. according to data from the pew research center, majorities across all partisan and demographic groups expressed little or no trust in washington. stop and think about that for a

minute. one of the observations that i have made traveling the world over on behalf of our country is how rare trust is, yet trust the thread that weaves together the social fabric that enables democracy to exist. when citizens are alienated from their government, democracy suffers. around the world in recent years, we have seen what can happen when trust unravels and societies pull apart. in the middle east, of course, but we have also seen growing middle classes in places like brazil, turkey, india, china demand more accountability and transparency from their governments. america is the strongest and oldest democracy, and we remain a beacon of liberty and opportunity, and nothing made me prouder than representing our values these last four years.

asking, americans are how do we ensure that the law continues to serve and belong to the people in a time when ideology and gridlock have paralyzed our politics? when the advance of technology and the dangers of terrorism have complicated efforts to balance our desire for liberty with our need for security? when old demons of discrimination have taken on insidious new forms? these are all challenges not just to our society, not just to our government, but to our legal system. they are strains on our social compact. i am convinced that they are tests we can meet. over the coming months, i will deliver a series of speeches focused on questions like these. today, the assault on voting rights, which threatens to block millions of americans from fully participating in our democracy and further eroding public trust.

next month at the national constitution center in philadelphia, i will talk about the balance and transparency necessary in our national security policies as we move beyond a decade of wars to face new threats. later in the fall, i will address the implications of these issues for america's global leadership and our moral standing around the world. let me turn to the right to vote, because choosing our leaders is among the most direct and tangible ways in which citizens exercise their ownership over the law. it is at the heart of america's democratic experiment. i know this is an issue more often addressed by secretaries of state in places like florida or ohio and elsewhere, as secretary of state for our nation, i saw firsthand that how we protect our freedoms here at home gives us the standing and experience necessary to defend human rights, democracy, and freedom abroad.

i spent a lot of time over the past four years in countries that are trying to learn how to make democracy work. they need models to learn from. i was proud that they most often looked to the united states. in burma, i talked for hours with generals who had taken off their uniforms and were trying to learn how to become legislators. with dissidents like aung san suu kyi who were attempting to move from protest to politics. theburmese leader of parliament said to me, we have been studying america and trying to understand how to run the parliament. i asked if they had had seminars or workshops. no, he said, we have been watching "the west wing." [laughter] you never know. again,ime and time people risking their lives for the right to vote.

i'm sure you remember the famous ink stained fingers in iraq and afghanistan, the long lines in south africa. we have also seen autocrats take over the rights of their citizens. -- insia, vladimir putin iran in 2009, the mullahs were caught by surprise and had to results first to fraud and then to force. in russia, vladimir putin actually accused me of personally engineering the massive protests that followed the controversial parliamentary elections of 2011. americans have had to fight to safeguard and extend the right to vote as well. when i was growing up in illinois, the youth minister from our church took a few of us into chicago on a cold january night to hear dr. martin luther king speak. afterwards, i stood in a long line to shake his hand and thank him for his work. i was a senior in high school in march of 1965, sitting in front of our black-and-white television set, when president johnson made his historical for

-- his historic call for passage of the voting rights act. his first words were, " i speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy." in 1972, the democratic national committee sent me to register eligible voters in the rio grande valley in texas. some of the people were understandably wary of a blonde girl from chicago who do not speak a word of spanish, or texan for that matter. [laughter] -- the law along to them as the law belonged to them as much as to me. they wanted to vote. we have made real progress since those days. but we still have deep flaws in our electoral system. between one quarter and a third of all eligible americans remain unregistered and therefore unable to participate. compare that to canada, our neighborhood, where most -- our neighbor, where most citizens

are registered automatically to vote when they turn 18. i held a forum in cleveland after the 2004 election with my friend, the late congresswoman stephanie toughs jones. there were reports of african- americans waiting in line to vote for 10 hours while whites in affluent precincts next-door we to 10 minutes. african-americans received flyers telling them the wrong times and days to vote. students from kenyon college old as had to wait half a day to cast their votes. they were registered. they were eager to vote. the machines were allocated in a way that ensured young people would face long lines. in the years since, we have seen a sweeping effort across our country to obstruct new obstacles to voting grit often -- new obstacles to voting. often undercover of addressing a phantom epidemic of election fraud. like when the attorney general of south carolina justified on harsh new voter id law by declaring that "we know for a fact that the identities of many dead people had been used or fraudulent voting," acclaim

soundly rejected by a subsequent state investigation. in 2013, so far, more than 80 bills restricting voting rights have been introduced in 31 states. not every obstacle is related to raise, but anyone who says to race, butlated anyone who says that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in american elections must not be paying attention. despite the best efforts of many well-intentioned election officials, discrepancies and resources across precincts and polling stations still disproportionately impact african-americans, latino, and young voters. that is why the voting rights act, especially its requirement that jurisdictions with a history of discrimination preclear changes in their collection procedures, has -- in their election procedures, has played such an important role for half a century. in the past 15 years, under both democratic and republican presidents, the department of justice has used the law to block nearly 90 discriminatory

changes to state and local election rules. many more were withdrawn under scrutiny. just since congress reauthorized voting rights act in 2006, more than 30 proposed changes have been stopped. as you know, the supreme court recently struck at the heart of the voting rights act and stripped out the preclearance formula that made it so effective read -- effective. some take the effectiveness of the voting rights act to say that this termination is a thing -- that discrimination is a thing of the past. as justice ginsburg said, that is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet. you will soon be soaked. sure enough, in the weeks since the ruling, we have seen an unseemly rush by previous to cover jurisdictions -- previously cover jurisdictions to enact laws that will make it harder for millions of our fellow americans to vote. texas hurried to move forward with an id law that a federal

court already invalidated. by the way, it would allow a concealed weapons permit as a valid form of identification, but not a student id from the state university. that certainly seems to violate the spirit of the supreme court's 1979 ruling which protects the voting rights of college students. florida is restarting a purge of the voter rolls that is likely to disproportionately affect minority voters and bring back memories of the 2000 election and the scores of wrongly disenfranchised voters. last year, state officials to up a list of 182,000 voters they suspect it to be noncitizens. further investigation determined that only a fraction of a fraction of 1% were actually ineligible. legislators in north carolina pushed through a bill that reads like the greatest hits of voter suppression. restricted early voting, no more same-day registration, extended voting hours to

accommodate long lines, stricter photo id requirements that disqualify those issued by colleges or public assistance agencies, and it goes on and on. these are all changes that would have required federal approval under the voting rights act, but now can go forward without scrutiny. by invalidating preclearance, the supreme court has shifted the burden back onto citizens facing discrimination, and those lawyers willing to stand with them. while these high-profile state laws get most of the attention, we should remember that a lot of the damage will occur below the radar at the local level. rights where the voting act was so important, in the small places close to home. so many potentially discriminatory changes do not require legislation or public to date. .- a public debate shifting poll locations and

election dates, scrapping language assistance for non- english speakers without preclearance, nobody outside the local community is likely to ever hear about them, let alone have a chance to challenge them. auick examples, in 2001, small-town tried to cancel elections after bike citizens became a majority of registered voters. an election was held in the first african american mayor was elected. in charleston county, south carolina, after african- american candidates won a majority on the school board for the first time ever in 2003, county leaders attempted to resurrect voting procedures nearly identical to those that had been found to violate the voting rights act. once again, the department of justice was able to stop the change. in 2007 the texas legislature amended the eligibility requirements for supervisors of water district so that only landowners conserve.

-- could serve. the department of justice blocked enforcement of the new rules, noting they were -- they would disqualify a number of incumbent hispanic supervisors and there was a significant us wordy -- disparity in rates between eight and minorities. disparity in land ownership rates between whites and minorities. unless the whole open up by the ruling is fixed, future cases will end very differently. citizens will be victimized by the law and disenfranchised and that progress that -- toward a more perfect union will go backwards instead of forward. what can we do and why am i talking to you, the members of the house of delegates? about what can happen and what you can do? i think we need an approach that moves on multiple fronts at once. stepped up enforcement by the department of justice, new legislation from congress, and grassroots action by citizens and lawyers across our country. isattorney general holder

doing, the department can undo discriminatory election changes. the department can build a new list for clearance. based on recent abuses. that would be easier and more effective if congress shifts the standard for bringing jurisdiction under oversight to one of discriminatory effect. it might make sense to allow citizens and civil rights organizations and lawyers to trigger federal scrutiny of problematic practices by filing a simple one-page complaint rather than a full lawsuit. that would also require an act of congress. second congress should move to pass legislation to replace those portions of the act that the court struck down. i was in the senate and 2006 1 we unanimously reauthorized the law. after what judge us -- justice

ginsburg described as a deliberate evidence gathering process. reports documented continued discrimination. testimony from expert ofnesses, documents discrimination,more than 15,000 pages of legislative record. the republican chairman called it one of the most extensive considerations of any piece of legislation and its nearly 30 years of service. after an overwhelming bipartisan vote, president bush pledged to vigorously enforce its provisions and defend them in court which his administration did. our process and the congress and 2006 was an example of how the system is supposed to work. andere guided by evidence facts, not ideology. we put principles ahead of politics. that is what congress needs to do again. it should reinforce the

fundamental principles of the voting rights act and assure that citizens have the information and access they need to participate in our democracy and at the very least future changes to election procedures should be subject to mandatory advance public disclosure that includes enough information so that citizens have a chance to analyze and understand what is happening and seek a remedy if there is dissemination. discrimination. [applause] beyond the voting rights act, congress should consider additional measures to improve elections in the country including reforms that would make it easier for people to become registered and stay registered. the bipartisan commission to improve voting that president obama announced in his state of the union addresses a good start. it is chaired by his campaign lawyer and romney campaign's

lawyer and i hope the findings received a serious hearing when they are announced. in the senate i championed the bill that requires making election day a federal holiday, require states to work to reduce waiting times at polling places, provide early voting, put in place uniform standards -- for voter registration, and identification by including same-day registration across the country as well as make it a federal crime to deceive voters by sending flyers to minority neighborhoods of false information. it was important to provide a paper record and improved security measures for electronic voting machines as well. were are many problems that cannot fix but preserving fairness and equality in our voting system is one that we can and we should. theecretary of state i saw countries take steps to increase voter participation

and strengthen their democratic processes. there is no reason we cannot do the same in america. [applause] i am well or that persuading a gridlocked congress to address these problems will not be easy but that does not mean we should give up and walk away. we should redouble our efforts in this is where all of you, and. -- and this is where all of you come in. enforcing the voting rights act has always depended on activists and advocates working at the grassroots level. more than ever that is what we need. i want to praise the aba for your strong stand. you are a make us brief in -- us brief in shelbyie urged the court to uphold the

voting rights act because it -- the work was not done and protections against discrimination were still needed. since 2004, the aba has worked with a nonpartisan election protection coalition to provide on the ground legal assistance to voters, especially minority areas. on tears have fielded complaints on telephone hotlines, interceded with state and local officials to prevent abuses, and spend countless hours in polling places and courthouses. i understand the aba will mark law day 2014 next may 1 with the same, why every vote matters. when i chaired the commission on women in the profession and traveled all over the country talking to lawyers and judges and bar associations and law firms might anyone who would listen to our findings, i saw firsthand the power and reach of the people in this room and who you represent. you know the law, you speak the language, you can harness its authority. that gives you a unique ability todrive our grass, right -- wrongs,gress, right and help our nation lived up to our finest ideals. no country has a richard

traditions and the united -- has a richer tradition than the united states. i ask each of you to take up this cause and your practices and communities. educate your neighbors, your local leaders about voting rights. scrutinize changes to election procedures, write an op-ed, call congressman, tell them you believe in the right to vote, not just for yourself but for your fellow citizens and tell them that our government cannot fully represent the people unless it has been fairly elected by them. as you go home -- [applause] to your local bar association, your courthouses, your law offices, please ask yourself what more you can do on your own with your local bar association, with the aba, to be that advocate for justice.

to can we bring a lot people's lives and help it serve and empower them? one of my early mentors as a lawyer was a lawyer who argued pivotal voting right cases for the kennedy justice department. in 1963 in mississippi, john stepped between angry protesters and armed police to prevent a potential massacre after the murder of medgar evers. and was the kind of lawyer later he was. years later, he gave me a photo with an inscription from tennyson's ulysses. to strive, to seek to a find, and not to yield. our nation's greatness is not a birthright. it must be earned by every generation. i am confident that we can earn it for this time. we are at our best one we live -- when we live our values, including our devotion to democracy and protection under

the rule of law when we widen that circle of opportunity and extend dignity to all of our citizens. i believe strongly that that is what is called for today. have is no group that i more confidence in being able to rise and meet that challenge than the lawyers of america and particularly, the american bar association. thank you all very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> denied, on c-span's encore

presentation of first ladies -- cracks sarah was very much a helpmate to him throughout her -- throughout his political career. she would read the papers and the passages she thought he needed to read. she was a regular fixture in the gallery in congress. typically, congress would enact a memorial to the outgoing speaker of the house to thank him for his service. when james k. polk left, the congress for so widely divided they refuse to do this. but many wrote poems to honor sarah at the time that she left. one of them was a united states supreme court justice joseph story, lamenting the loss of zero kolk to washington society. encore presentation continues tonight at 9:00 p.m. on c-span. >> one of the things i've looked at when i was exploring this was

the county records where these colleges are. when you look at the colonial county records, very often you will have the name of the president or the name of the professor listed with their -- and listedty with their taxable property were enslaved person or two or three. if you look at the name of the president's, and then three lines over, part of his taxable property is an enslaved person. case oflso have in the princeton or harvard, you'll have the president's name ditto the college. who owns the person? in the common knowledge of the -- l area,

>> cragg stephen wilder on the history of slavery in the elite universities. today, thunderstorms are contributing to low voter turnout in new jersey's primaries. democrats and republicans are vying for their party's nominations. democrat cory booker and republican steve login are expected to easily win their party's primaries. the associated press reported the federal government is challenging the merger of u.s. airways and american airlines. it would result in substantial harm to consumers in the form of higher fares and fees. the justice department was joined by the attorneys of several states in court here in washington. in about 50 minutes will be going live to the association

for unmanned vehicle systems for their confident -- conference of drone makers. that will be live at 1:00 p.m. eastern right here on c-span. right now, a discussion on any " -- inequalities in today's criminal justice system from today's "washington journal." host: ari is the cohost of msnbc's "the cycle." he is here to talk about inequality in the u.s. justice system. let's begin with the washington times. but see what eric holder had to say on the low level offenders. the headline is quoting our last guest. it is been five years for the administration and they have not acted. timesd the washington instead of changing the law he is saying we will charge

defendants with lesser crimes to avoid mandatory minimums i doing it through executive order. he creates in order that a new residence could deal away with. that a new president could just easily do away with. guest: that is certainly true. particularly in areas where they have executive discretion, how they prioritize certain laws can change from within different administrations. thatnot think that means they do not set policies. i heard mr. norquist today. he sounded a little off on some of the details. i will give him the benefit that he is not fully caught up. he mentioned it would have been nice if general holder had worked with or mentioned to some of the members of congress who are working on this issue. in yesterday's speech, he singled out by name several members of congress including rand paul who has the safety valve after that would take a -- the safety valve act that would

take a similar approach to try not to always default to these mandatory minimums. secondly, this is not coming out of nowhere are necessarily coming late. if you talk to people in doj, they emphasized that this is ongoing process. they inherited a policy by john ashcroft to go to the max and include any materials that could trigger that minimum. the first outback the memo two years ago. takes away some of the authority of judges in sentencing. they basically dialed back that memo of two years ago. yesterday's policy goes even further. it says there will be an affirmative policy in these cases that eric holder identified, nonviolent drug offenders who do not have a tie to larger criminal organizations. in that category they are now going further they go on the sentence and the same disparity. this is through the congress.

it fits with a broader pastiche but everyone may not know the details. host: why do think it is necessary to reduce the minimum mandatory sentencing? guest: if you look at the policies widely known as the war on drugs, it you see a shift in the way we approach criminal law from this country's history, to reserve the sentences that take people away from their families and their lives and their careers for a or 10 years, to eight, 10, 15 years, the type of things i was turning people into repeat offenders and recidivism but do so because they have done something heinous. we care more about removing them from society than future rehabilitation. that was always for the most serious crime. violence. murder. in the state criminal code, that

was the case for a area long time. it is a very recent thing where we have seen states and the federal government take what are essentially personal crimes of drug use or low level of distribution, not talking about kingpins and people who are doing the main manufacturing and distribution but people who are using drugs or may sharing some drugs. we do not think that is great behavior, but it is relatively new and unusual throughout the world to treat that behavior on par in sentencing with say rape or manslaughter. that is what has happened. that has grown. the prison population is not double or quadruple but has grown by 700% and created an epidemic that has tremendous disruption in our communities and cities, disruptions that are disproportionately impacting the minorities more than other

people on a host of issues. that is what you talk about. that is the larger shift. if you take the long view, it is one we are seeing draw more opposition not only from the justice department but from many libertarians and traditional conservatives who are saying enough is enough. host: what about the political ship? shift? political what do you make of democrats not fearing that they might look weak on crime? guest: that is a huge shift that opens up the conversation in a fundamentally different way. viewers will remember the many andections that turned on -- c-span viewers that know their politics will remember the many elections that turned on issues, particularly in the nixon era, particularly when you had concerns about the social order about discipline and order in our society

combined with a lot of racial strife and tension. in the crime area, but in the laterdesegregation cases in the north. it became a national issue. it is one that really polarized people along ethnic lines. all of those issues combine to create an environment where both parties were constantly trying to outdo each other on who was "tougher on crime." a lot of americans outside of the highly excited environment have a natural understanding of a distinction between being tough on killers and murderers which people still real very strong about versus what are more personal crimes of personal behavior. if you are a libertarian or conservative, we heard norquist talking about a constitutional system that restricts more of

what the government should do as opposed to telling it what to do or how to be involved. that is right. there is no doubt the bill of rights is to reserve right to the people. certainly to restrict the government. that includes the right to counsel, write to defense. ninth -- the right to defense. thethe rights of government's power to detain you. certainly in the area of nonviolent offenses the notion that the government should be not only exercising that power but exercising it without the check of independent judges. some minutes of the war on drugs put this in mandatory minimums. it has taken a real cost. host: a want to get your reaction to the news coming out of new york. the judge in the frisking policy by police there. he said that it is unconstitutional. what is your reaction? guest: i thought it was a very strong ruling.

came in with a lot of detail, including looking at 19 specific instances of this practice. 14 of the 19 were unconstitutional. treating been different people i rates so -- by race so differently. separate from any racial conversation, violating our worth amendment rights to be -- our fourth amendment rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. what they have done is take a decision by the supreme court allowed for certain on the street searching. there was a risk of danger to the police. this makes sense. you can understand why the supreme court would say an officer who feared for his public safety might have a little more leeway as opposed to the higher search requirements that are triggered during a traditional search of

going into someone's home. you learned the in law school. him makes sense. -- it makes sense. what nypd did is take that exception and make it the main way they search people in new york. 85% turned out to be racial minorities. 89% of whom were not guilty of anything. as the lawsuit sews, one .1% of of131% of hispanics, 1% african-americans stopped under the program. 1.1% of hispanics. does not seem like you're even looking for guns or you're terrible at doing it. when you look at the racial disparities, you're terrible at doing it and you are subjecting a certain type of very invasive procedures to primarily people

who are both of a certain class, look a certain way, and who are overwhelmingly innocent. that was too much for the court to accept. >> guest: you are a lawyer. and you are a member of the new york bar. the "wall street journal," spacethey disagree with you. the site the supreme court carries ohio. they go on to say it is constitutional because of the supreme court case as well as it is allowed under the criminal procedure law. they are either about to create -- guest: the debate over whether this was constitutional change yesterday. yesterday morning, the wall street journal and i disagreed about this issue.

today we are in an environment where the federal word has ruled it unconstitutional. there is a right to appeal the case is by no means over.nd the media's opinion matter far less. mayor bloomberg talked about whether this increases safety. that is a debate people can continue to have. as long as it is illegal under the old form, which in now is, a practical reality it is not matter so much about what others think. we have to respect the court's decision which is the law until changed by a higher court. the second issue you raised was the law, what they can do under code. it comes in as timelines and a

relevant thing. if they are otherwise acting constitutionally. nobody would suggest this for a variety of reasons. no one would suggest that the new york guidelines somehow trump the amendment of the constitution which wason o yes's ruling. goesis where the debate for those who want to look and how you can have these practices continue in ways that do not filing the constitutional people's right. just to be clear for the nonlawyers, the police ability to conduct the traditional stop and frisk has not changed. the question is whether this policy was applying that search for guns in a way that was so clearly irrationally and racially disparate that the court said it went well beyond what they can do in the gun

search context of the supreme court. this is an important point. when people say that stop and frisk is no more in new york, they mean that program as applied with those numbers i mentioned. the individual ability of an officer still stands. ist they can no longer do use that gun search as a trick or a loophole to conduct hundreds of thousands of searches without really having the reasonable suspicion necessary. host: we will go to tony, democratic caller. caller: we are looking at laws (one way or applied with what we see is that they are

racially unbearable and their results. a lot of these laws began in the last 30 years or so. there was the perception that only the minority were on drugs or committing crimes or whatever. perception has changed that it is bad for our country. whiteample is that the population uses marijuana at a slightly higher rate. they are punished at quadruple the rate. they consider this a low-level type of drug event. guest: it is an important.

and we have seen throughout our history, including today, that our laws strouble -- struggle to bring equality. we have come closer, but by no means fully achieved. and you have mentioned earlier the guilty series that we're doing in d.c. what we're looking at in many cases is the way that laws are written in one way or are actually applied, not necessarily with discriminatory intent within the mind of each individual person within the system. but when you take it into a role with what is some pride -- sometimes called a disparate impact, they are racist in their results. that you can look to is that the white population uses marijuana slightly higher than the black and occupation. punished at quadruple the rate for what some

people consider a low level type of drug offense. when we look at the history of this and whether those offenses were as a society, whether those sentences were debated and thought about a something that we would all share together and have to think about. whether they were meted out as something that would only happen to a few or others is an important point for us to think about. itler: i don't know, it depends how it will be reviewed. when it goes to the second or third court of appeals in new york, that is a chance for multiple judges to look at it that is generally where this kind of case would stop. that is to say, even high

profile appeals from the federal courts are generally not taken by the supreme court. why does the supreme court take this or any other? there is conflict between the circuits or something so important like a national question that they would not duck it. the health-care legislation was ultimately disagreed on by several courts but that's the kind kind of case where people feel even if there was not a big split between different federal courts come the supreme court might have been likely to take that course to resolve it. is stop and frisk that kind of case, i don't know. [indiscernible] what is your prediction? guest: the second circuit

compared to other places in the country is not necessarily a rubber stamp for government activity. there is research that shows that the police or the executive wins at an extraordinarily high rate. there are circuits that are particularly sympathetic to claims of public safety or security. the second circuit is not that so this should be a fair case. >> we will leave this conversation to go live to the panel discussion this afternoon new technologys, and unmanned systems on the impact on privacy. is an international nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting and supporting the unmanned systems and robotics industry. this is just getting underway.

>> also our general counsel, i have been at the forefront of thei's response to privacy issues being raised about unmanned aircraft systems more believe it will get in-depth in these issues at these panels. i wanted our members to know that we have been dealing with this this issue in a very proactive way. we encourage you to visit our website to see how we have been responding to this. it is my great budget to azier.uce al fr a law enforcement officer previously with numerous years of experience in the airborne -- what was the police department? in the glendale police department. he is now in north dakota and heads up their research efforts and is one of the experts on how law enforcement agencies can use

and fly unmanned aircraft and has worked with the grand forks sheriff's office after their uas operations. join me in welcoming al, thank you. i thank all of you for coming. i am a little bit relieved because when we did this session lester in las vegas, the room was packed. what it tells me is that maybe this issue is going to the back burner a little bit where it should be. that is heartening to me. bit,t the tone a little what we are here to discuss a something very important and that is the respect for citizens that we serve -- that law and so -- that law enforcement should have using new technology, respect for the fourth amendment and i have had experiences in my background where i have seen that even though a particular law-enforcement agency does not abuse the technology or abuse

the freedoms of the public that they serve, another agency doing something that could be perceived like that puts a black mark on all of us. come to mind that -- most of my law enforcement was in the southern california area. thesure all of you remember arrest of rodney king in 1991 and two subsequent trials that followed that. police officers and the supervisor on scene were charged with violation of rodney king's writes. throughout that trial and the riots that followed after the first acquittal in state court come on numerous occasions, i would be called to assist officers on basically complaints that the citizens had of those officers behaviors. i cannot tell you the number of times that something similar to this was told to me by citizens -- are you going to beat me like you did rodney king? we are a completely different

agency and have nothing to do with the los angeles police department but our actions were tainted with a broad brush. later, in 1995, after the trial of o.j. simpson, and the revelations about lapd detective mark fuhrman and some racially insensitive comments he made, the same thing occurred. we were broadbrush, as were many agencies in the country, with being racist cops. fear that ieat have. the most sacred thing we have in iss country other than god the maintenance and respect for our u.s. constitution and the bill of rights. we want to protect that. hit closeat does not to your heart, just as an industry and as a group of users in law enforcement that want to use this technology, if we do not get the public to agree to its use, we will be unsuccessful. we will fail before we ever

leave the starting gate. of being able to use this technology effectively -- we have to win the public over. anyone that thinks that police department is rude -- is ruled by an iron fist has never been a police officer. we police through acquiescence and consent of the public. if the public does not consent and acquiesce to us in our role as law enforcement officers, we will fail. with that, i want to go through a couple of housekeeping issues. if there was an emergency, the closest egress is out the doors at the back of the room and to the right and out to the main thoroughfire -- a fair. you have surveys in front of you and i encourage you to fill those out. i know it is difficult when you want to move to another session but it is a simple five questions and is valuable to auvsi in determining whether they should repeat sessions and so forth. if you could provide that input,

take a couple of moments toward the end of the presentation to fill that out, you can leave them on a chair at the back of the room and i will make sure they get to the auvsi representative. we are hoping to have at least half the session dedicated to audience-directed questions. i would ask that you hold those questions until the end of the session and when you want to pose one of those, come to one of the microphones. that way, everyone will hear your question and this is being recorded for distribution and that will make sure that the audience watching those recordings is able to hear your question as well. i would also ask -- having worked with these panelists and i know they will comply with this -- i would ask you the same thing -- treat the issue with respect and pose your questions and a respectful manner. not like saturday night live " youne curtin - ignorant, misguided -" you fill in the rest.

i would like to introduce our panelists. jay stanley is a policy analyst with aclu based in the dc area. he has written extensively on the issues of privacy and the use of technology. informative paper with a co-author that has to do with the implementation of uas technology by law enforcement. if you have not read it [indiscernible] . is a division manager at new mexico state university. he is very influential in uas and sits on numerous panels and is generally recognized as one of the experts in the implementation of uas technology. =worldwide. wide. professor in

pepperdine university. it is one of the most beautiful campuses in the world although the law school does not share that cap is but the main campus is wonderful in malibu. i thought you guys were downtown. oh, my gosh. i take that back. i am jealous, now. go, perfect. gregg research focuses on the securityon of law, and public policies and has written extensively on the subject of the use of technology and how it interfaces with law with such renowned publications " thehe new york times," baltimore times" and others. he is quite a well spoken expert in the area of the intersection of technology and law. finally, generalmet ben gilo, counsel for the association of

unmanned vehicles systems international and services auvsi in the role of a lobbyist and stays on top of what is a pivotal issue and the implementation of this technology. it has to do with privacy concerns and respect for the fourth amendment. the format we will use is that we have some prearranged questions that i will be asking each of the panelists. questionsgiven these the for the panel and they had time to prepare their responses to them. we are also going to open it up to other panelists if they want to counterpoint that particular response or they want to segue or add something onto it. we work through those questions, once we have made it through those questions, i would ask you to hold your questions and responses until the end of the presentation and then we will invite you to one of the microphones. you can either address an area we have discussed or you can

suggest a completely new topic. you can pose your question to an individual panelist rapoza to the entire panel. i will open it up to the entire panel to answer that question. we will start off with jay. what are the privacy concerns with the use of unmanned aircraft systems? >> there are a number of concerns as to how to precisely deploy and implement it but the gig is concerned we have -- the biggest concerns we have is that the drones not be used for pervasive surveillance. to technology now exists have aerial surveillance using cameras watching 25 square miles and track pedestrians and vehicles that move in that area and put those into a database and store the databases, and data mined them

and that is our biggest concern. we don't want to live in an america where from the minute you walk out your front door until you get home at night, you have to wonder if an invisible eye in the sky is tracking your every move. that might seem a ways away from with theare now both technology but especially the regulatory environment. it has held back the kind of the plummet but those issues will get worked out. there is a lot of the manned. demand byent-up police agencies around the country and other government agencies to use this technology. we have police helicopters but they are expensive and require maintenance crews and cost millions of dollars and there is a built-in natural trait on how much aerial surveillance those copters are used for. when we look at a future where even a small police department can the point dozens or hundreds of very small, cheap, inexpensive robotic video

cameras, we are going to see police agencies in this country -- we have seen some that have expressed an desire to do so -- want to put these cameras over our neighborhoods and track everybody all the time and we need to use common sense privacy protection to establish the rules of the game and what we as a country want to allow the technology to be used for. once those privacy protections are in place, and we are sure they will not be used like big brother, that will be good for the drone industry and we will see innovation and new uses for the technology without people having to worry about being watched every minute. >> when you talk about that pervasive surveillance, or is the aclu aware of any law enforcement agencies that have utilize the technology in that manner, characterized as abusive? of ogden, utah

wanted a blimp over certain cities that would have cameras. he was turned down by the faa. it did not meet their current regulatory rules. we saw the city of dayton, ohio work with a private company to carry out pervasive surveillance and tracking within a rather large area using manned aircraft. manned aircraft circling over and videotaping everything and tracking everything as a test. the technology is here. the only thing holding it back is the faa. this particular deployment got around that issue by using manned aircraft which is very expensive. instead of a manned aircraft, if you could have a cheap flying robot, there are look few limits on the kind of activity. >> let's drill down a little bit. when we talk about surveillance, that has a negative, tatian. -- that has a negative connotation. two majorl down into

categories of public safety missions -- specifically law enforcement. the first type of mission would be let's say things like disaster reconnaissance, searching for lost persons, that type of thing vs a pervasive, let's say, antiterrorist countertenor conducts surveillance. let me have you focus for just a moment on the question of public safety -- related use of uas and think hazardous material spills, searches for lost children and that kind of thing. does the aclu have concerns about those type of in general, we do not. we are perfectly happy to see drones used for specific particular operations whether it is search and rescue, disaster response, police use in particular operations. if police have a warrant to

storm and a state and they want to use a drone as part of operation, we have no problem with that. there are probably good uses for drones and that -- in those kinds of areas. there might be particular rules that need to be worked out. if a drone is being used to search for somebody and that happens to fly over other houses -- we think there should be rules that govern how those images are handled so that the people whose houses happens to be flown over, their privacy is not invaded. we are focused on mass, suspicionless surveillance, watching everyone all the time. the drone has potential to do good and i think it is in everybody's interest to pin down the privacy question, put in place and commonsense protection, and then we don't have to worry about privacy and that will free public safety

agencies to use these technologies in the ways you were talking about without the clout of big brother hanging over it. >>greg, do you have something to add? this year, the boston police department would like to use an unmanned system over the marathon to monitor what is going on and use it for security purposes. there is no suspicion. that would warrant getting a warrant in that circumstance. would the a.c.l. you consider that or would it be a particular eyes law enforcement use? i have not thought about that particular use but in general, we would probably say that that would be something that would be towards the mass surveillance and of the spectrum. i'm not sure what the purpose of a drone would be in that situation. there is a long record of law enforcement wanting to videotape trackcal rallies and keep

of who is politically active on the conservative and liberal side of the spectrum. create databases for that. >> what would be the privacy concern that the aclu would find an aerial surveillance of a ?arathon >> it would be establishing the principle of not using drones outside a particular situation. our drones flying over our cities all the time watching everything that is going on. it is an issue i have not taught about in that context, but if it is possible it was limited for certain public safety situations where there is a worldwide event that would be an exception that could be carved out without raising the danger of pervasive surveillance. gears, whats switch

is the aclu position of uas for commercial and non--commercial applications. those applications would not bring them the protections of the fourth amendment unless people utilizing the uas were operating as a stub law enforcement. this is your next-door neighbor utilizing a uas for commercial or noncommercial purposes. >> the private sector uses of drones raise questions but that is a different set of privacy issues. we have not called for regulations at this time to cover private use of drones. for one thing, there is an existing set of laws in states like peeping tom laws and harassment laws which make cover a lot of the kind of things people are worried about. it could be the teenager next door peeping through the bedroom window or what have you.

that is already covered by peeping tom laws but they are comes -- they are inconsistent from state to state. there is also an almost potential for innovation in the private sector area once the safety issues are taken care of. we would hate for that by lawson to be stumped where it is not clear exactly yet what the privacy problems will be. clear as in the law enforcement context. also a countervailing constitutional issue which is the first amendment. right toefended the photography around the country. we have seen police officers harassing, sometimes arresting individuals for taking photographs, sometimes of trains and bridges and sometimes the police themselves. it is clear in the course that

you have first amendment rights to take photographs of police carrying out the duties but they have been harassed and we work to protect the first amendment rights of photographers. those rights are implicated by drones. groupshave been used by to watch japanese whalers, environmental groups, and there was some of the occupy wall wanted toivists who use a drone to watch over her abusive arrest by the police. i don't think it was legal for them to fly it and i don't know that they'd did. we think that photography is something that individuals should use to watch over the government. we don't think the government should be watching over the people unless there is specific evidence you are involved in wrongdoing. thank you. >> thank you. thereery broad sense, are

any legal protections out there now in place that would protect the privacy of the public in relation to uas? jay covered that topic but other than local legislation on ofping toms and the abuse this sort of device, probably not. not at the federal level, certainly. regulationsaviation do not deal with unmanned systems at all. privacy does not appear anywhere in the federal aviation agency regulations or in congress. one of the big questions for this industry is whether the faa should be in the business of regulating or dealing with this privacy issue. probably not because that is not

their job. their job is safety. the simple answer is no, there are no legal protections at a federal level that i am aware of for privacy protection and use of these systems. >> how about civil repercussions? i am tired of that guy two doors down out hisuas and watching my daughter's. >> there is the issue of privacy. a misdemeanor would be committed by going over your neighbor's fence and people into the bedroom window or invade their privacy. using an unmanned system where the data that is generated from that disseminates private thermation and put it on internet and defend them in some way by disseminating false information about them, to expose some activity they don't

want exposed to the public -- those are all potentially civil litigations called civil tort. damages for pain and suffering and humiliation, for intruding on privacy. in the right circumstances, if the offense was grave and up were egregiousnough, -- or enough, the injured party could obtain an award against somebody. punitive damages could be used to convince the actor or the wrong doer not to do that again or provide a negative ramification for those who might want to do something similar in the future. there are similar remedies available but i have not seen it happen yet with unmanned systems. it is certainly possible. >> let's step back to statutory law.

some 30 states are either considering or have considered or are in one level of review of that would control unmanned aircraft systems and those individual states. opinion, is the state legislature, the creation of state laws, the appropriate way to control or trying to control uas? >> my personal opinion is no. different sets50 of rules and regulations that would be impossible for a legitimate organization to fully understand. even an operation that might cross state lines or borders -- you have the issue of the rights of local governments, municipal governments, county and state to exercise their police power over activities

within their state. states retained by the in the constitution. at the same time, you have aviation policies and agulations that come from federal oversight rule and those laws tend to preempt conflicting state laws. count, there are six states that have enacted some sort of law dealing with uas and it has been introduced and 48 other states. the danger to that is a smorgasbord or jigsaw puzzle of conflicting regulations. i think there needs to be a harmonized effort nationally to do something not only about the privacy concerns but also the overall regulation and management of unmanned systems. from a developer standpoint, that sounds like it would have a significant chilling effect on the development of the check knowledge a. >> is certainly could and it is

not locally, it is a global issue. there are attempt to harmonize the regulatory environment for unmanned systems around the world. that is a major effort. if you were here yesterday, they talked about different systems across the world. have been going on for years and they are likely to go on for another decade or two before we sort it out. there is conflicting and overlapping regulatory is environments that make it impossible for the develop the developer to understand what the rules are. something we try to avoid. >> thank you. what should the uas industries be doing to address the real and imagined issues associated with privacy? ♪ [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] >> [captioning performed by national captioning institute] shocked when i walked tradeshow floor by the lack of attention to this issue. mostly because it is a business opportunity. companyt [indiscernible] that says our software catalog to the operator was, logs were the camera was pointed and where when it was pointing the camera, date and time stamps on logs it on a separate system and stores it somewhere so that only authorized people can access that data is going to be someone who is two or three years ahead of the privacy curve and will be able to sell this to the states where legislators are clamoring for legislation that says to law enforcement -- what are you doing with this data and how are you using it? jay has conceptualized the privacy concerns for an entire aroundf organized

privacy interests. they are tapping into a vein of parent i have that the general public as. that is getting reflected on city councils. go to seattle and see if they are buying unmanned systems. it is getting reflected in state legislators and the answer, if you're an industry that is innovative, look at our innovative product that addresses the concerns these people are raising. i have some personal believes about the concerns. some of them are a bit overwrought and jay and i disagree about what pervasive surveillance might be. lengthier.e it much that fight will happen in a legislature world they would defined what these privacy concerns are. what do your systems offer to address those concerns? shoes,re sitting in your

, if i were in your chair, my argument would be unmanned systems can be more accountable than man's systems. let's take a boyer is him. sm.voyeuri if i have an officer that is voyeuristic, if they want to go to the state college campus and parked their car outside the sorority house and observe what is going on inside, if someone sees them, they will ask them a question and he will give some answer and be able to go on his way and cover his tracks. if he tries to do that with an unmanned system that is accountable, tracking who used it and when, the flight logs are subject to a separate audit, that person will get caught and people will raise questions why the system was being operated by pointing in a certain direction. it was always pointed at the sorority house. what is going on here? that system would be more accountable and subject to audit.

if you wanted to store the data for some reason, you would be able to store it but it would be destroyed after some time but only acceptable with a warrant. the other issue i have with industry is that the only person pushing back that i have witnessed in trying to track this against the legislation cropping up in different states and in the congress is auvsi. i don't see a lot of effort from businesses themselves. this is going to hurt your bottom line. oryour local government state decides to pass a bill that says any evidence derived from an unmanned system without a warrant cannot be used in a trial after the first time you fly this thing out there looking as you aret hiker -- flying, you don't have a warrant -- you witness someone in the wood being stabbed to death. under the aclu proposals and the current bill in congress protecting american privacy, that evidence of the person

being stabbed to death would have to be suppressed because it was gathered without a warrant. is poorly drafted to address the privacy concerns. this is being blown out of proportion by the aclu and rand paul and others and it will hurt your bottom line of law enforcement cannot use evidence of crimes when gathered from these systems. it is important for you to track this and be a part of it and offer solutions from a technology standpoint. it is not our tradition that any evidence that happens to a be incidentally collected that contains evidence of a crime must be suppressed. that is not our position. be in some of the state legislation that is being asked but that is not what we call for in our white paper. >> i am glad to hear that. a representative of the california aclu at a police town hall said there is an exception

for inadvertent collection. he said you could drive a truck through it and said they are proposed to inadvertent sub -- the discovery. i'm glad to hear that is not the position of the aclu. an independent voice, i would hope that no legislation is so restrictive that it would incorporate that type of language. frequently, law enforcement agencies conduct searches and it falls within the plain view doctrine and even in the service of a search warrant, if we find something not associated with a search warrant in a place we had a right to look at based on the four corners discussion of the search warrant, that would be a legal seizure. >> you will be disappointed, then. >> i would be terribly disappointed if that was restricted. >> the privacy act of 2013 came up through the house judiciary committee. out ofnsor was ted poe

texas. it has the most co- signatories of any of the bills working through congress. in my testimony before the house judiciary committee on this, i identify all the problems with this particular bill. it is the bill that is most likely to get past and most likely to blow a hole in your bottom line and most likely to prevent law enforcement to use these things and circumstances where we would want to use them and it is the most popular bill in congress. >> if it has the language you have explained, not only would i be disappointed but i characterize it as dreck on in an unprecedented. it would definitely hurt law enforcement if it includes that type of language. -- senator paul said he is concerned that the fbi is getting a warrant before

they fly over his house. is it just the privacy of his roof? this is the tenor of the debate and we are getting bills poorly drafted that people should pay attention to. >> one thing we see is police video cameras on the street installed, pointed at the front door of people's houses. would you like that in front of your house? >> i would not. >> most americans would not and that is a better analogy. >> i agree with that definition. thate problem with definition is there are places like that. new york city. >> we will see the technology get to a point where drones will be capable of technologically -- they are already there -- that 3 hundred 65 7, aerial surveillance of neighborhoods in backyards and

houses. good,s why we need strong, protection. >> in my testimony before the judiciary committee my proposal was to define what is persistent. as you move over a certain ,eriod of time like six hours you need reasonable suspicion to continue surveillance. once a guest to 24 hours, you need a warrant cause within 48 hours. to put this in perspective, if you are driving down the street, the police can stop you based on reasonable suspicion. they can ask you to step out of your vehicle based on reasonable suspicion. they can pat you down and run their hands over your body based on reasonable suspicion. if they have probable cause that you committed a crime, they can arrest you without a warrant and search without a warrant or search your vehicle without a warrant and bring you to the police station without a warrant and all of that could be documented by the patrol car camera, by law enforcement officers but if you pop a drone

overhead, and videotapes that an that evidence would be suppressed. because it was gathered without a warrant. that seems excessive. it would be suppressed under current proposals. it would not be suppressed under current law but under current proposals. that seems out of touch. a police officer can arrest me and search my me and my vehicle without a warrant but if they want to fly over my house and take pictures, they will require a warrant. i agree with you on persistence and that's where we need to define what persistence is rather than justsay -- >> they cannot search anybody they want. beennable suspicion has abused in many examples like in new york with the stop and frisk policy. say is if police want to use a drone, they have to have a reason to think will gather evidence of wrongdoing, not just

throwing them up all the time for no reason. that is the temptation we will see and they will be flying over our neighborhoods all the time. >> that takes the boston bombing situation off the table. if i am concerned about public safety, i want to have aerial surveillance over a massive crowd. could be the new york times new year's eve celebration or it could be the boston marathon. i want to be able to look down and i could do this under current assets and from a man's helicopter. i can see if someone is placing behind 3 --year-olds. i want to reconstruct the scene afterwards. if the cameras are in buildings, they don't require a warrant. if they are on a helicopter, it's ok. it sounds like if i put that on everything system, has fallen apart from a privacy

perspective. if i take the same camera and glue it to a building, everything is ok. we don't like pervasive surveillance of our public spaces whether it is aerial or from fixed cameras or license plate readers which are tracking american cars by the millions without any suspicion of warrant. they are going into government databases. it is a principle in our country that the government does not look over your shoulder literally or figuratively unless it has reason to think you are involved in wrongdoing. it does not watch everybody all the time in case you happen to do something wrong. >> a police officer gets in a car and drives. they don't have any reason to think i'm doing anything wrong but they pull in behind me and watch what i am doing for a little bit. maybe the license plate reader reads my license plate and if i am a felon, the license plate reader beeps and they arrest me so i don't kill someone.

>> we don't have a problem with that but if you are a regular citizen, it takes the time and place where you were and puts it in a database. it stays in police agencies in definitely and they are building a record of where people are at any given time. it is the same issue with drones. is thes the retention problem. >> that is one problem. >> to say we don't want people looking at people unless they are doing something wrong, the police would never leave their desk. >> that would be silly. police circulate throughout society. there are only so many police. if you have a personal police officer who followed you 24/7, some americans would freak out. when a police officer is in your presence, you know it. you know who is watching you. the technology is now here that we have the virtual equivalent

of everyone of us having our own police officer watching everything we do. that is why we need to put in place commonsense regulations around the technology to preserve the privacy of americans for hundreds of years. we don't want to lose that privacy if we just sit back and let the technology be put in place without putting in place protections. >> let's back up a little bit. let's take a look at a macro view. indicated that to his knowledge and the aclu knowledge is that there has been no documented characters of misuse of an unmanned aircraft system by government agencies. that seems kind of a ordinance. -- that seems kind of important. ?here did this furor come from was it generated by the aclu or the press or is it a legitimate

concern of the public? is it technology generated? in your opinion, why did this become such a large issue? it seems odd that usually when we focus as a society on a particular problem or issue, it is because it is a prevalent issue, something that has occurred repeatedly or the single occurrence was so shocking that we focused on it as a society. i see the absence of this with uas in this country. i am curious why this became such a prevalent issue. the privacy concerns that jay is articulating, i am concerned as well. i don't agree with the scope of the concern and that in the rhetoric, it seems like unmanned systems are being treated differently than other technologies.

said --ke what you cameras have been around forever. in new york city, leave a backpack on the ground and you can see how long it will take for a police officer to show up. nypd has a helicopter that can see people from miles away better than any camera on an unmanned system. but, drones, tapped this fear. they are a catalyst for concerns that people have of her base of followingrobocops us and cataloging what we are doing. that contemporary dystopian fear combined with advances in tech knowledge he and the fact that we have cell phones and understand how technology works has raised legitimate privacy concerns but they are privacy concerns for which the unmanned systems industry is taking the

brunt of thehit. way ofsed to having a legislating about privacy and pervasive surveillance and data retention procedures that cuts across all technology. if we are concerned about always being watched, we should also be concerned about being wise from a camera on every telephone pole as well as a camera on an unmanned system. to go after the unmanned system industry is the easy target that captures people attention. i think it makes for bad legislation when you single out one industry without focusing on all the other ways that drive us he might be implicated. that is part of my biggest concern with art of the privacy lobby approach. they don't take eight technology-neutral stance. a lot of the bills you see are focused just on drones. this bill is absurd and humorous how it goes just after drones and has these carveouts for realtors and cattle been an

oilman and it is legislation caught -- gone bad with special interest throughout. those of the big problems i have with it. the trigger here is the dystopian fears of robotics and unmanned systems. that is why we are seeing so much emphasis on drones rather than on the rest of the ways that privacy might be compromised. >> ben - lot of these issues around privacy and unmanned aircraft started about a year or so ago the faangress passed authorization bill which had been stalled for a number of years. when congress finally passed that bill, there is a section calling for the faa to write the safety rules to allow unmanned aircraft to fly in national airspace. that language had been in the

bill for a number of years. privacy issues were never raised . in the previous years until when the bill was signed and passed. sections were the most popular provisions of the entire bill, specifically the creation of the unmanned test sites because every senator wants a test site in their district. they recognize the future of andspace is in unmanned they recognize jobs that could be associated with it. it was not until there was an agriculture group that had some flyings that the epa was over their properties, using cameras to look for clean water act violations. was theremember if it cattlemen or whoever, someone in the midwest, they wrote their congressmen and the congressman went before the house and railed against the epa inability to do surveillance. camethat news reporting

out, the word drum was inserted and then it went viral on media -- the word drum was inserted and it went viral -- the word drone went viral. the epa does not have any unmanned aircraft. they have manned aircraft and they have been using command cessna's to fly over properties and find clean water violations. from that moment forward, things have really tumbled. i think we would agree with red cross assessment that people -- agree with greg's assessment, they are attacking this industry which is easy to do now because the faa has not yet written the safety rules. is illegal for commercial entities to fly in unmanned aircraft in the national airspace. that is why there is not a whole

lot of good news stories about how farmers are using these aircraft to monitor their crops and increase their yield or how firefighters are using them to monitor wildfires or help save children and burning buildings. the list goes on and on of great applications. that a lot of these privacy issues could stifle the faa progress on safety rules and really impact this industry in the long run. >> that puts it in historical precedent and where that came from. he wroteair to jay, his article a couple of months before that came out. >>greg, i think i know the answer to this i want to ask the question anyhow -- we started off with the pivotal question of -- what can the industry do to address this very important concern of privacy? on a scale of one-10, how would you rate the overall uas

industry in this area? i will separate out auvsi. >> very diplomatic. association is on top of particular policy issues. based on my very informal survey thisst year's auvsi and year's subsequent follow on conversation through my writing co. i would give the industry a zero. if you have a senator or congressman who has sponsored or signed onto a piece of legislation like the protecting american privacy act, there has to be someone who's congressperson -- have you brought them to your facility to tour the facility and understand how many jobs can be created by the sales of your systems? you

need to talk with them about the concerns the congressman have that rapid them to sign on and have you asked about the concerns and ask what they are hearing from their constituents. then you could go back to your development team and say there is this concern about data retention and who can access logs. don't we have a computer guy who can write a program that requires a password? if you have not done those things, then you are atzero. if you have done those things come you start to move up on my scale. if you are implementing them and selling them next year, you will be a 10 and i will single you out for attention if we have the panel again. we must do something to address the privacy concern. equal systems, if you're selling it with the software package that has these audit controls, i bet your system gets sold to the local town council

more readily than the competing system that does not have those concerns. aree elected officials paying attention to that and so are the chiefs who have to listen to their town councils. ben.tstanding segue to as a representative of the largest organization representing the uas industry, to deal withi done privacy and to encourage the membership of auvsi to deal with this issue? >> thank you for moderating this panel. as the industry trade association, we recognize that the issues with privacy are serious and they need to be addressed in a responsible manner and in a thoughtful manner. we have been trying to do that. aclu anday and the the privacy lobby groups. we talk to them and ask what

their concerns are and how are we different than other types of electronic communication devices ? we want to learn about what the issues really are. after addressing those in talking to our members, auvsi came out with her first ever code of industry conduct which talks about operating a system in a professional and responsible manner that talks about privacy a little. we have drilled down more on this issue to issue a privacy statement and other positions. ultimately, i could summarize our standpoint by saying -- we don't think privacy bills or legislation should be necessarily addressed to uas because you will always miss the mark. if you address privacy, you have to do it in a tech knowledge he way. -- in a technological way. there will always be a new new thing.

what this boils down to -- this is where the aclu has concerns with the government -- does the government have the right to take a picture of you and use that picture against you in a court of law? that is what this boils down to an hour approaches who cares how you take that picture? it doesn't matter who was taken for a satellite or a street camera, that is the the issue that needs to be addressed. ways to implement protections. the international association of chiefs of police, the world's largest police chief organization, came out with model guidelines and how they recommend police adopt this new technology and put policies in place to make sure the data is isained properly and if it discarded or there are audits and everything else. we actually support those. a lot of this ultimately comes down to education. we have to do a better job of educating the public, the

decision-makers and others about what this technology is and how will it be used. bigone' they think of a weapon i's military system and that is not what we're talking about for domestic application. we are talking about small things that look more like toys, things that way a few pounds but law-enforcement and put in the bad -- put in the back of their truck and deploy it as needed. can use the small unmanned systems for the individual situation. aclu says what about the future when these things are so cheap and pervasive? us to flyes not allow hardly at all and if we do, it is under tight controls and restrictions and the technology is not really there yet to make that affordable or realistic. veryarge systems are expensive. if a police has monies of dollars, they will spend it on helicopter.

>> can i jump in here? i can understand why the uav and history is concerned about privacy concerns. at the a seller -- at the aclu, we are concerned about privacy in general. we worry about drones. we propose solutions for all of these. the aclu is not all-powerful. there is a wave of concern and the country about drones. we can talk to sociologists about why that is but the fact is, that is one area where we have concerns and that is an area where there is a lot of interest on state legislatures around the country. we are happy to see them act on drones. we would like to see privacy laws that are broad and cover many technologies. we are not seeing those so we will not oppose the drone privacy laws.

i understand why you feel you have been singled out. surveillancewerful technology and they need to be regulated. but we also think there are lots of other technologies that also need to be regulated. not to not a reason regulate drones. >> i appreciate that. statecking a lot of the proposals, we have seen that , the aclu chapters state chapters are supporting these bills that would require a search warrant before you can fly in unmanned aircraft. that is fundamentally different from how police use manned aircraft today. what they usually do and why so many sponsors are republicans is usually the aclu is going to often take party alongside republicans and they are the

sponsors of this legislation. you have civil libertarian groups joining forces. i understand where you're coming from on this. at the state level, we do not see it like that. >> thank you. with ang to come back couple of questions to close out the panel. so we have plenty of time to entertain -- to audience questions, please approach the microphones and you can pose a question to any of the individual panelists or as a whole to the panel. whoever feels comfortable addressing that will answer your question. please go to one of the mike's. we are recording this so we want to hear your question. you all very much. this has been very educational. i have a quick question and it has to do with if you have standards for police and law enforcement on privacy concerns but not for the private sector

or individual citizens, does that create an opportunity for a third-party to conduct ongoing surveillance or run commercial over flights and come as needed, to sell that data collection or video footage or censor -- received data to law enforcement as needed? it just occurred to me as you were talking. is that a workaround for a trusted commercial partner to enter and help bridge that divide? >> anyone want to take that? this. alluded to there are already companies that do just that. they will fly a manned cessna over a city and they will reap court the whole town or whatever. if there is a crime, they will look at that specific area and run the tape backward to see where the bad guy got away to. i think they only do it for those specific calls.

that is a fee for service sector 70 that law enforcement does already. mind anytime you are utilizing a civilian source, search and seizure laws kick in, because those contractors are now a functionary of law enforcement and become law enforcement agents. >> talking about persistent surveillance. the analogy of the overhead salad like imagery. -- overhead satellite imagery. whether it was cell phone cameras or stations somewhere or a fixed point camera, or any kind of data collected, would that address concerns if that data lived in a trusted third- party provider from persistent collection, not passed out as necessary, but in many ways a mall security camera is always

collecting, but is that a mightial think that address her concerns? to seeo not want americans subject to 24/seven aerial surveillance. governmentby a agency or by google. a live street view and raise privacy questions. we are not calling for private uses of drones, but if that kind of thing emerges, we would call for limits on that. i think it would change the nature of american life and create chilling effects and give everybody a feeling they were being watched once they leave their house. the americans that we represent do not want that kind of a country. >> thank you for your question. >> good afternoon. for your

participation. three comments and question. first comment -- i would disagree about the lack of attendance today. this is a very important issue. we know that. it is just a bad time. secondly, wondering why we are being picked on. it is because it is aviation. we are always picked on in aviation. that is my second comment. third comment, i would say this issue is an alice -- is analogous to the noise issue on airports, where on top of it, it will depress the market, has some of you have pointed out, and there was a response to that stage three and stage for noise type standards. that help us. so someone talked about it, i believe it was you, greg, the way to get on top of it was to be proactive. stateve heard the 41 -- and i -- 40,

look at the traditional role of the faa in managing the airspace and i say there's a huge disconnect here. how are we going to make those parallel? ?an we make those parallel my final comment, or maybe a at whatn question, level with this issue ultimately retard the deployment of these devices? >> that may paraphrase your question. how will this issue ultimately affect the development of the u as? usyes, and i will purchase response and say that it will really depress it. >> with someone like to take a swing? >> we have to address the faa portion, which is from a standpoint, we do not think the faa should be responsible for unmanned aircraft privacy issues. they are the last agency you

would want responsible for privacy issues. they are a safety organization and should stay focused on their mission. there are legitimate safety issues for integrating demand with unmanned aircraft. right now the faa is up against this perception. they are being pulled from a not movewer, maybe do that rulemaking forward so fast. maybe a whole lot of something. you are right, this industry is jeopardized by the issue of privacy because it is holding up rulemaking to allow for commercial activities, what is why we need to focus on this issue to other folks who are more adequate to handle these issues, like the department of justice or homeland security, other agencies more well-suited for privacy issues. >> i do not want to harmonize this at all. forink federal legislation privacy is a horrible idea. i think federal legislation to address concerns we talked about before so you know how to

develop a system so he can fly in a safe way, that is a role for the faa, privacy is a local issue. it really is. you go to new york city, take off your clothes, and run down the street. you think anybody will get a picture of that? i think they might. do the same thing on a ranch in texas. i am thinking you do not believe anybody will be snapping a photo of you. your conceptions of privacy change based on where you are. if the people in somewhere in utah want to subject themselves to pervasive surveillance city can be a utopian society, is their right to choose to do that, as if massachusetts wants a ban on manned the sins, let them do that, and things will work themselves out. -- as an industry, you can develop products, and places where they want to let their hikers die in the mountains, they would do that until they think their legislation is overprotective. if you have a one-size-fits-all

privacy bill at the federal level, i do not think you can like the results, especially when we look at the types of bills working their way through the congress right now. it isst way to develop let it crop up in different states and see what kind of technologies developed, solutions develop, and people will have good ideas crop up in the states. that is the best way for to develop, not in d.c. x we like to see strong privacy legislation. first choice.our this can choice is to let it stay at the stake and local level. we you will see a broad spectrum of different bills. it is important remember the faa precedence over the federal airspace, but these local bills are not the airspace , they are regulating local law enforcement. -o --

>> [indiscernible] legal minds better on this panel than me. there is a question of what is the navigable airspace for an unmanned aircraft. the supreme court has defined it is ok for police to use and helicopters at certain outages because the rationale is anyone could fly at those outages. what ever people see is admissible in court without a warned. flynmanned aircraft can around power lines, close to mountains, in the foliage. those issues need to be addressed. -- wencountable that think the courts are to better situation, the courts have historically defined with the fourth commitment is and how it is governed. is what we would like to see played out.

>> yes, sir, would you like to pose your question? >> thanks for having the discussion on privacy issues, and you have been talking about fourth amendment issues. i would like to hear the response from each one of you. s used inu see uav' terms of news gathering and first amendment issues there, and how that is going to be compounded with a privacy issue again, but against first amendment concerns? >> can you start off with this, and we will go right down. >> i am curious to see what jay has to say. thank you for the question. newsgathering is one of the great economic potentials of this industry, when the faa writes the rules to allow for commercial activities. newsgathering has always had a special place, some people think it is the fourth branch of government, and the freedom of the press needs to be upheld. media would love that have

access to these things, especially in situations where they may not be able to afford a manned asset or where it is too dangerous, like after a tornado or a flood, where images are newsworthy but difficult if not dangerous to get. there is a great value there and i think the news media will be a big user of the technology when it is allowable. but this is a point where i do not envy jay's position because he has to thread the needle between first amendment rights for individuals to document where they are legitimate journalists or so the journalists, versus privacy. i am from california, and we legislationparazzi in california that tries to deal with these types of issues, and how do you thread the legitimate right for someone to take photographs of a public figure verses that public figure's privacy interests? it is super challenging.

happening is as we start to think about the developing legislation, hopefully in the states, we will find different ways of dealing with the use issues, restrictions, retention restrictions, commercial sales a person's likenesses, and then we will get into the area of tort law that was referenced before. this is a challenging balancing act. if you have to think about writing legislation on this, i'm going to -- i teach legislation in the spring -- and this will be one of the topics i will have my students work with. it is impossible to write legislation that will make everyone happy here. >> that ties into what you said about individual states'rights and the concept of do not fix something that is not broken. in california, we see that paparazzi concern. we do not have that in north dakota. maybe it is appropriate for california to address that type

of use of this technology or any type of technology that would potentially be utilized by the proper rights he -- paparazzi, aware that would be a minor concern for us in north dakota. but i would agree with what was said, for the same reason that it makes sense economically for law enforcement to consider this technology as a supplement to a $6 million helicopter. thenews media will see same benefit. there is a huge market. sometimes in the next years, there will be a case before the u.s. supreme court dealing with the technology and the privacy issue. that is a scary thing for all of us to have this industry and up in front of the court that may not understand or want to understand all the implications of what we are talking about here. it may well not be a fourth amendment issue that and up there or a regulatory oversight

or a preemption issue, but a first amendment issue, of the media's right to use or deploy a small unmanned system. and to collect news and being some local faa or law enforcement agency that they cannot do it. that will be the case that we will see in front of the court. >> i welcome that so i have a different pinion. i would like to see a case go before the u.s. supreme court and i would like to see twonizations be in by the submit amicus briefs to educate the court on that, because there is a debate now whether we can take cases like florida versus riley, a seizure case, and apply it to unmanned aircraft. it will be interesting to see what the appellate courts and the state supreme court's way in on this and whether they connect the dots between manned and unmanned searches. we are waiting to hear the aclu -- >> it is a difficult balancing

act and a complicated thing. the aclu is a first amendment free speech organization. we have been for 90 years. we were founded in world war i where people were thrown into prison for writing letters against the war. we think there are significant first amendment invocations of drone photography. it is exciting, the idea that ferns can be used by not only formal media organizations, but by individuals acting in that capacity. watching over what their government is doing, watching news, and so forth. that is the station between formal media and individuals is increasingly boring today. you can imagine scenarios where you come up with difficult complex between the first amendment and privacy. we hope we will not see that is, is to -- our prejudice allowing prejudices -- individuals to take photographs

allow is why we do not legislation with regard to private use of drones. if these difficult problems emerge, maybe we can have a soul-searching conversation within the aclu. but for now, we would like to see individuals with the ability to watch the government, but not the government watching individuals unless it has a reasonable belief in wrongdoing. additional point. the acl view has not sponsored information on this, but i had the opportunity to consult with a senator on a bill to regulate private collection of information from a drone, and after three weeks of back and forth and how they were trying to define what a private space was, they just gave up because i did not see it introduced anywhere. it is so hard. private use to document what is

going on in a stadium -- i do not know -- do i have an expectation of privacy in a stadium that i will not be documented? it is so hard to figure out to find the spaces where we have reasonable expectations of privacy that should be protected from surveillance. >> this is something that we are grappling with because it always used to be easy to know who was watching you, whoever is in the room with you, or whoever you could see was seeing you, and now we are these tech knowledge is, you're in public, but you are being tracked for your entire life and that is an invasion of privacy that was not possible until recently, and how do we have on that with the fourth amendment and policy? the supreme court has just begun to grapple with that with their decision lester in which they even though your car is in public and viewable for an entire month.

>> interestingly, and while back we were doing a training with their unit, and we had members pick outess there, -- any pile you want, so we went over to ray grand forks police officer, who was focused on the privacy issue, and he said this is a earth shattering, so different, and a young police officer, so out of the mouths of hma said i do not see that. there's nothing that has changed. there's still the fourth amendment and sterile case law in search and seizure and respect for the public to that we have as police officers. i do not think anything has change. i think that was one of the more clear answers that i have heard of this issue, that we still have all those checks and balances, they're just applying them to a different technology. again, his opinion and i think re is some validity to it. >> greg, i know you spoke or at least it seems you're speaking

now, all of you, about external regulation or external control over what is being done with unmanned air craft systems. i think you said everybody right now is about 80, but you would like to see some people percolate to the top. offessor fraser, do you know any situation where there is internal checks and balances on unmannedtion of aircraft systems, whether in academic or private systems? >> in north dakota we have an independent committee of 15 nevers sponsored by the university that represents public safety, represents the community as a whole, represents the faculty and administrators at the university and looks at every mission set that we do. they are there to apply community standards.

the community standards in new york may be different than they grand forks, north dakota, los angeles. this committee was charged with applying grand forks, north and it hasandards -- been very helpful. i was not the biggest fan of that process when i was introduced to it, but it has been very productive. recommendations that we have implemented in our unit that i think has made it a more acceptable thing to the public but a more credible unit in supporting what we were -- [inaudible] in our case it has been successful. >> [indiscernible] one.re, i will give you there are internal police standards, what we learned from paulost recent senator

grand standing was that the fbi has internal guidelines for the use of unmanned systems, so in a time of 60 years they only use unmanned six limbs 10 times, -- systems 10 times, only in an investigation. it starts out as an assessment, limited things you can do, then there are increasing levels of suspicion required to continue the investigation, and it is required you be in a predicated or for investigation before and unmanned system could be used. --s is all in and dependence in an appendix. if i want to get you from a 128 10, from a manufacturer, i would say what system cannot handle law enforcement so they do not have to think of all the accountability checks and the other things that he aclu is concerned with? you can talk with me to figure out what those things would be. i want a system who identifies with the operator is, whose

wife's an id card for the -- who before it goes up in the air. now when i go to the police department, they do not have to think who will i put in charge of this and who will control the control keys and how do i track what a big pain this thing is going to be. i hope they do not pass any legislation. instead, the officer and police department eyes it and said look at all the controls that it has built into it and we are happy to create a town council civil liberties review board that will audit the records on a semiannual basis and the local aclu thy can't sit on the board. something will be rejected if they are law enforcement sensitive. >> [indiscernible] >> you would need all of that, but currently the system would inone that officer schmo,

addition to his other duties, now has the duty of maintaining the database for this information and the word document and saving it without losing the thumb drive and doing all this other stuff, so we know police are already tasked with. that will fall to the lowest got on the totem pole. why not just the poor the system that i am sure you could get an intern from a computer science department to write this program over the next couple weeks and now you are selling the package with all of the rejections worked into it. it becomes a marketing feature as well as protecting privacy and creating transparency. that is what i have been waiting to see every year, a b next year. i just gave you a visit planned. >> in many technologies we are seeing auditing become a standard feature of things. there are technologies you can put in that it cannot be tampered with and so forth. that is becoming the standard

test practice in many technological areas. unsheathed at double edge sword, so i want to hear from you and other panelists. on one hand there is a benefit for all footage to come off to become archive. part of me says that is a slippery slope because now we are establishing this robust archive of things that do not have evidentiary value and that there is some danger there. on the other hand, what use just about going back and a complaint about misuse of technology would be enabled to the archiving of that . how do we reconcile that? that but nothive make intrusive that would be onerous to the aclu and would be onerous to me as a citizen? i do not want a lot of archives or footage out there being stored by law enforcement agencies that does not have

evidentiary value. is there isone immediate collection, subject to seven cows, then it needs to be removed from the hands of offside somehow and perhaps only accessible, you might need a procedure that says it is only accessible then with a permission or a warrant, once it is archive, and after time it just dies, it's delete it. it could be a year, and i am i imagine jay is freaking out here. once it is archived off-site, it needs two keys to access it, but after a time that information is deleted. if you take the boston ami example, if you had a drone overhead, we could reconstruct that crime scene better than we did, but 14 days, whatever, once

you got the lead, you would have taken the evidence it is, and tag it because it was relevant to a court prosecution or investigation, and the other data would have been deleted, like surveillance cameras in stores or at government overwrite the tapes over a time, and you do not need that information because you say your car was keyed to three years ago. everything i said is hard to reduce to a politician's soundbite and expect to get it to legislation. the way it needs to percolate up would be a spark ideas that end up working and maybe they get codified at the state and local level. >> archive or don't archive? >> i think you can archive, but it should be measured in days and weeks, not months and years, and what you do is if somebody either the

authorities, because they believe it has evidentiary value or individuals because they think there has been some sort of abuse, then the data is retained -- [inaudible] >> we are having technical issues with our coverage of this discussion. we're recording it and you will be able to see it in in its entirety later on our schedule. -- on our website, that is. www.c-span.org. we have more on the issues of privacy. we will be live on location for unmanned vehicles systems tomorrow at 7:45. we will talk at a president of the association about the types of domestic drones, how they're used to federal oversight. also the moderator of this panel and that person from the aclu.

live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span later today, join us for gay marriage issues. we will have an event from the san francisco bar association that reviewed the supreme court decisions that came down earlier today. we will have a live town hall meeting. we will look at the legal landscape in states that faced challenges to their same-sex marriage laws. marco rubio is warning of a possible immigration executive order. radiong to tallahassee host, he said i believe this president will be tempted if nothing happens in congress to issue an executive order like he did for the dream act kids a year ago. 11s is where he legalized

million people by the sign of a pen. we will not get border security. this is a story from politico. this today from the hill, democratic leaders aren't pressing boehner to back a program or stamp risk a spike in hunger nationwide. our was characterized as country's most critical roadmap. after their -- farm bill suffered a defeat, gop leaders moved a farm bill that included no funding for food stamps. her publicans are crafting a separate snap bill that will double the snap cuts to roughly $40 billion over the next 10 years. tonight -- to himh was a helpmate throughout his political career

when he was writing speeches. he would get her opinion. she would read the newspapers and underlined passages that she thought it was important for him to read. fixture inegular congress. congress would enact a memorial to the outgoing speaker of the house thanking him for his service. when polk left congress to run for governor, the congress was so widely divided they refuse to do that, but in the newspapers and number of politicians wrote poems and honor of sarah. oseph storrey.s j ofthe encore presentation "first ladies" continues tonight at 9:00 eastern on c-span. yesterday, bobby scott answered questions at a town hall meeting in his district. he was joined by federal officials who talked about how

people would get insurance through the new marketplaces known as exchanges. medicaid expansion was also discussed. >> i want to thank everyone for coming out. i am the pastor of the first baptist church of south richmond. we want to welcome you to the center at the first baptist church. we do not want this to be your last time if it is your first time. we want to welcome you here, anytime, into any of our community at today's, any of our menu of services on sunday. we are very active and socially conscious.

we want you to know that you are welcome one and all. we are here tonight and we are glad to have c-span broadcasting live and because of that we will be cognizant of time and. this is a live feed. we will move right into what we came to hear tonight. goodre here to hear information about the affordable care act. passedat legislation was , it was a great victory and it still is, but there are many questions lying out there, and many people want to know how will it affect my family, my it affect myoes community. we are here to have those questions answered, not by a novice or by someone who does not know what they're talking about, but we are glad to have one who has been through a -- thick and thin with this community. we have been able to count on him not only to ask the right questions, but also to bring us

back the right answers. i am pleased to bring to you congressmen, who has decided to make south richmond one of the stops as he goes throughout the district, to bring the information to the people. i am pleased that he is here in south richmond tonight. i want you to help me to receive our congressmen, the third district congressman, robert bobby scott. [applause] >> thank you. deduced himself as the pastor, but did not introduce himself as a member of the school board. take you for your leadership. is alsolegate carr with us today. good evening, and i would like to thank you for joining us this

evening as we discussed the affordable care act, better known as obamacare. i am pleased to be joined by three great speakers and had toand that schedules be rearranged. we thank you for your willingness to be with us. be first speaker will someone who was appointed as the regional director of the department of health and human services, which includes five states, including virginia and the district of colombia. she works with federal am a state, local, and tribal official in a wide range of social service issues. prior to her appointment, as she served for seven years with the administration of the governor in pennsylvania, and first as deputy secretary of health and later as the director of the office of women's services. she earned her masters degree at

johns hopkins and completed additional graduate work there in the public school health and hygiene. hazel wholl have bill received a degree from princeton and then attended the university duke am aware he completed his residency at the mayo clinic. he is the founder of the rehabilitation. he is the former chair of the american medical association council on legislation. medicalspeaker at the college of virginia. he is the president of the fairfax county medical society ova chairman of the invo systems health council. the creationd in of the virginia center for health innovation.

we have a staff attorney for the property law center where he specializes on health issues. he worked at legal services in charleston to my south carolina, for coming to virginia. theng a brief hiatus from re, she worked for the department of medical assistance services, but she has been one of the key advocates promoting the development and improvement of public health insurance programs for low-income virginias. littleto give you a background on where we are and how we got to where we are before getting to our speakers. briefly several years ago we recognize we needed to basedm because employer-

coverage was declining. thousands of americans were losing their coverage. 14,000 that they were losing their coverage. small businesses were struggling to provide insurance coverage businessesand small providing coverage, from 57% of small businesses in 2002 46% in 1% per year decline in coverage. ina percentage of income, 1987, health care premiums were costing seven percent of the family's income come. by 2000 -- by now, it is 17%, and if we do not do something him it will be 20% by 2020. we recognize if we will come up with any kind of plan that works it has to be comprehensive. one of the groups we want to make sure that we cover are those with pre-existing

conditions. if you allow people to wait until they get sick before they buy insurance, wait until they get sick before they buy insurance and then the only people with insurance would be sick and therefore the average cost for each premium would be on -- on affordable. we have have a comprehensive approach, and briefly, what we did was a proposal similar to other proposals with a guaranteed issue of insurance. responsibility of employers, individual mandate them a subsidies to help people who cannot afford insurance to help them buy insurance, and increase market relation, the same element of the republican land romney'snd governor plant in massachusetts, along with other personal -- proposals. , first ofe benefits all, if your small business,

people talk the effects of small businesses. if you have fewer than 50 employees, you are exempt, but if you provide health insurance to give tax credits to those small businesses that provide coverage. young adults can say on their policies until they are 26. there are caps on out-of-pocket expenditures so when you reach that cap, and affordable cap, there are no more co-pays or deductibles. it is all on the insurance companies. there is no lifetime limits. if you have a chronic disease, many times people are pumping up on the maximum of the insurance policy will pay. after that you have no coverage. happy a pre-existing condition so you cannot get other coverage. with obamacare, there are no lifetime limits and no annual limits. no reception of benefits. a lot of companies say they have all these premiums the month and you get sick, they figure they

can cancel the policy and save the money. we have prohibited canceling anyle's policies for illegal reason. you just cannot cancel somebody's policy. if they do not pay, that is one thing. that was a real problem. you cannot fail to cover somebody because they have a pre-existing condition whatever your health situation is. you can get coverage at the standard rate. protections, if we are going to expect people to buy insurance, some people cannot afford it. $30,000 to $94,000, it will be tax credits to keep the cost of the insurance from zero up to 10% of your family income. it will be affordable.

we are closing the doughnut hole under part d. if you are on part d, most of you know what the doughnut hole is. benefitsend up with no and still have to pay your premium, and after a couple thousand dollars out-of-pocket, it takes up in, but the doughnut hole is a real problem. security, you can get insurance regarding of your situation. a lot of people are in job lock. they have insurance on the job. they cannot leave their job because they cannot get insurance anywhere else. because of obamacare, you can switch jobs without worrying about health insurance. preventive care, without a co- pay or to dockable, preventative, when you get cancer screenings or your annual checkup, no co-pay or deductible. people are finding that they have cancer but finding it out early when it is curable rather than late when it's generally fatal.

and transparency, we can see what's going on and make sure that insurance companies are doing what they're supposed to be doing. now, for virginia specifically, one of the things that we require under transparency is that insurance companies, when they take your premium dollar, they spend at least 80% to 85% on health care, not corporate jets, c.e.o. salaries, commissions, advertising, and other overhead. 80% to 85% to health care. a lot of them, for virginians, $12 million was saved thanks to policy rebates and when we caught them not spending that much they had to rebate to the policy holders and virginia got about $12 million. we have 66,000 young adults in virginia now on their parents'

policies, over 400,000 virginia children already getting health care without being discriminated against because of a pre- existing condition. some are born with a congenital defect, can't get insurance. now they can get insurance. two million virginians have already gotten their preventative care without the co-pays and deductibles. medicare has saved about $157 million already on prescription drugs. medicare recipients. and there is more competition and better prices. right now it is expected when those without insurance today get insurance, we expect them to be paying 25% less than they're paying now. in new york the bid are coming in at 50% of what they're paying, 50% to 60% of what people are paying now and other states, huge savings. so the fact you actually have to

compete and everybody is insured so that when you go to the hospital with insurance and pay, you just pay for yourself, not a little extra because people showed up at the emergency room and couldn't pay. that little extra today is about $1,000 on every family policy and we're not paying that so people with insurance that don't have to do anything will probably find some savings because they're only paying for themselves now, not for everybody else. the marketplace where those without insurance will go, i say those without insurance, because you already have churns, you'll get the benefits but don't have to do anything, you'll keep the insurance that you have. but those who are buying insurance in the marketplace, it will be run not by the state -- some states are running their own. virginia elected to let the federal government do all the work, and so it's being run at the federal level. medicaid expansion is uncertain. there are huge benefits for expanding medicare.

excuse me -- medicaid, but if we expand medicaid under obamacare, 400,000 virginians would get health care. virginia has some of the strictest eligibility standards now so a lot of people, working poor, would be able to get medicaid coverage. we have found that because virginia cover as lot of things like if you go to m.c.v. hospital and can't pay, the state will pick it up. if you go to the health department and get services and can't pay, the state picks it up. the community services board provides mental health services and under the obamacare there is no health parity, you have insurance for mental health. virginia carries it now, but if we expand all those people will be coming with medicaid, 90% or 100% paid by the federal government, so that things paid

for today on the state dime will be paid for with a medicaid card if we expand. one calculation estimated that the general fund of virginia, if we expand and pay the state match, the general fund will be $555 million better off because a lot of things we're paying for with the state dime would be paid for with federal money would be actually better off than it would if we do not expand. billions of dollars, about 30,000 jobs and 400,000 virginians will get benefits. we've paid our taxes. so we are entitled to get those benefits. now, virginia hasn't decided yet, and dr. hazel, i served in the general assembly in the house and the senate and i know we like to do things carefully, so no one should be offended by the fact that virginia hasn't decided yet. they're going through a process

to make sure whether it's the right thing or not. so let's not get mad at them because they've decided to do it slowly but surely but hopefully dr. hazel, they'll come up with the conclusion that it's a good thing to do. we'll now have presentations from ms. grossi, dr. hazel and mrs. hanken. in that order. >> good evening, everyone. thanks for having me here this evening. i really want to thank the imani center for graciously hosting this event and more importantly to congressman scott who absolutely is a champion for the health and well-being of all the citizens here of the third district. i'm always so grateful to the congressman for inviting me to do events with him and it's a pleasure to be with you here in the city of richmond and the commonwealth of virginia. the congressman set it up perfectly for me by telling you a bit about the affordable care act and some of the provisions

and now i'm going to tell you about the marketplace and how you're going to get insurance. again, you might have heard sometimes it's called exchanges but we at h.h.s. refer to it as the marketplace so that's how you'll hear me speak about it going forward. so again, come january 1 of 2014, all states in the country are required to have a marketplace set up. and again, what's important to know, and the congressman mentioned this, but i want to reiterate it, this is for people who currently don't have health insurance or who buy their own health insurance. so if you were to get your insurance from your employer or from medicare or from medicaid or from chip or from tricare, this does not affect you. you will not be affected by the marketplace. this is for the 48 million uninsured americans and those who buy their own private insurance. so states had decisions to make. again, the congressman mentioned this, but is worth repeating, the states had the decision to run it themselves, it would have been a state-based marketplace or partner with us to run it as

a federal state partnership like they're doing it in your neighbor state of west virginia or did they decide they wanted the federal government to run it called a federally stated marketplace. but as the congressman mentioned we'll be running the marketplace for you, we at h.h.s. will run it for you here in the virginia because the governor and administration decided not to run it. it's important to know if states can change their minds even though virginia, for example, is going to be run by us at h.h.s., starting in 2014, states can change their mind down the line and decide they'd still like to run it for themselves and in fact can apply for funding from us at h.h.s. to set up the marketplace through december of 2014. so now actually i want to give you some details on the marketplace. so the best way to think about this is kind of like expedia for health insurance. again, this is going to be private health insurance that you're going to be purchasing and you're going to be able to make real apples-to-apples comparisons.

so again, you're going to look at what works for your life in terms of your health status and finances. again, one of the things i want to tell you about, you can see i have actuarial values listed here. there will be a bronze, a silver, a gold, or platinum. you can pick from. important to know the actuarial values, bronze is 60% and means the plan will cover 60% of the benefits you'll be responsible for the other 40%. going up to platinum where it means the plan will cover 90% of the benefits, you'll be responsible for the other 10%. just for example, medicare is an 80%-20% plan, the equivalent of a gold plan. to give you an idea what medicare is, the plan pays 80% of the cost, you're responsible for the other 20%. i hope that gives you an idea what you'll be looking at.

again, you'll be able to look in and make real decisions based on what medal level works for you and then within that -- what plan within that medal level works for you. and again, the other thing i wanted to tell you about is it you're a young person, for example, back to those medal levels. you can imagine this, if you're a young person at 28 years old, you're healthy, might think a bronze plan will work for you because it will have a lower premium, but higher co-pays and deductibles and in essence you're taking a risk you won't get sick. but if you're 55 and are a cancer survivor and have diabetes, you might think the platinum plan is better because it will cover a lot of the benefits but the premium will be higher and you'll have little co-pays and deductibles. i hope it gives you an idea how it's buying private health insurance and you're going to get to make a lot of different plans and decisions. but somebody is going to say to me, well, what if i'm 55 and have diabetes but i can't afford the premium for a platinum plan because the truth is a platinum plan will have a higher premium. we've thought about that as well and the congressman alluded to

it. if you make up the 400% of the federal poverty level which is about $94,000 a year for a family of four, about $46,000 for an individual, you're actually going to get financial assistance from the federal government to pay for your premiums. and again, you're going to know this information right up front. we're creating a data hub between i.r.s., social security, homeland security and you'll know up front when you're making a decision what premium you want to buy, what plan you want to i would and how many financial assistance you'll get from the federal government. you'll know that up front and that math will help you make the calculation on what plan is the best for you. again, i hope that makes sense and i'll be happy to answer questions about that later. by the way, the other thing important to know about that, the money does not come to you. the money goes directly, automatically, monthly to the health insurance company to the

health plan, so that way again, a way to eliminate fraud and abuse but you'll know what financial assistance you're getting but the money doesn't come to you, but will go automatically to the health insurance plan you've picked. in addition to this, if you make up to 250% of the federal poverty level which is about $58,000 a year for the family of four, about $28,000 a year for a individual, you'll get financial financial assistance to pay for your co-pays and deductibles. and again, you'll know all this information up front about if you'll get any financial assistance for the co-pays, any financial assistance for the premiums, and again, knowing that math and knowing that data will actually help you make the decision about what plan you want and what medal level and what plan within that medal level you want to buy. and here's a list of the essential health benefits. what does that mean? it means under the affordable care act, my boss, secretary sebelius, decided what were the benefits that must be covered in every plan. no matter if you bought a bronze up to platinum, no matter what

medal level or the premium, these categories of services must be covered so you can see the categories up there. so again, just so you know, no matter what plan you buy, all these services you see, all these benefits you see listed up there will be in the plan. so that's why we call them the essential health benefits. that's important for you to know. next you're going to ask how am i going to enroll for this. and it's going to be four different ways you can enroll. you'll be able to enroll online, by a computer, by phone, by regular mail, or in person. and i'll get into all those in a minute but again, one of the things that's important to know is once again you'll actually be able to know what qualified health plan, what plan you want and what financial assistance you get before you make the decision and what's important to know especially if you do it online. you'll actually be able to buy your insurance right in real time. that's why i say it's kind of like expedia. you'll be able to look at all the plans, know what financial assistance you get, make that

decision, pick the plan you want, and you buy your health plan. so really is real time purchasing of health insurance. it's an important thing to know. so help is available for you. we actually already set up a 24 hour a day, seven day a week call center and started june 24. you see the number listed up there. that number actually if you call, someone can speak to you in english or spanish but we also have another 150 additional language lines available. so again, you can get help up to 150 languages. you can see that we also have a 24 hour a day, seven day a week web chat available for you. again, live chatting. these are people who can help you as you're trying to fill out the application and make have decisions. but again, we know some people really will need help in person, that somebody will be able to sit down with you at a computer and help you. we know that some people it will

be the if first time they're buying insurance or some people might have literacy issues or some people might have language issues. we know that so we've set that up as well and we've created two programs, one called a navigator program and one called an in- person assistor program. as the name suggests, i hope navigators will sit with you and help you navigate the system as you try to make have decisions, same thing with in-person assistors. they'll literally sit with you at a computer and help you negotiate the system and make some choices. what's important to know, navigators or in-person assistors must be neutral and will be illegal for them to direct to you one health plan or another so we thought of that as well but we have assistance for you. navigator grants are actually again, since virginia is a federally facilitated marketplace, we'll be announcing within the week the grants that will be given out to virginia. we're giving out $1.5 million to virginia for navigators and we've already given out $2.4 million to community health centers for in-person assistance, so once again, federal funding coming to you to

help you sit down and get the assistance you need. by the way, some people always ask me but there's still a big role for agents and brokers, in fact we started training last week. so we do see there's an important role for them going forward, too. finally, i know jill and secretary hazel will talk to you as well. i can't sit down without talking to you about medicaid expansion. as you know, there's probably over 900,000 uninsured virginians. in the marketplace we expect 520,000 virginians will get their health insurance now through the marketplace, but as the congressman mentioned the other 400,000 would get health insurance if you did medicaid expansion here. that's an important issue and is two parts of the puzzle and was envisioned under the affordable care act we'd do medicaid expansion and the marketplace. if you did medicaid expansion, that's for the people who really are low income, working poor. these are working people making up to 133% of the federal poverty level which is about

$30,000 a year for a family of four, $14,000 a year for an individual. again, we're really trying to expand the safety net for the most vulnerable citizens. the administration is considering it and we hope they will. the congressman mentioned this and is worth repeating, the first three years, it's 100% funded by us the federal government. 2014 to 2016 we pick up the cost 100% and ticks down to 2020 where we pay 90% and the state pays the other 10% and remains that going forward. we really are going to pay for the vast majority of the funding for medicaid expansion. you can see in the first six years we estimate virginia would get over $9 billion. you heard the congressman say creating over 30,000 jobs. but jill and the secretary are going to talk more about it so i'll leave it there. a couple of resources for you, i really hope we have handouts for you in the back so you don't have to memorize this, but go to healthcare.gov and set up something called my account

right now so you can put in information about yourself and start getting ready for when the switch starts october 1. that's the other thing i should mention. open enrollment is october 1, 49 days away, so we're working fast. it goes through march 21, 2014 but if you enroll october 1 through december 15, your coverage starts january 1, 2014. again, you'll have 10 weeks to make your decisions about what plan works best for you but again, open enrollment starts i know we are out of time, at the last one, that is for anyone whose primary language is in spanish. finally, that is my personal e- mail address, and it is my privilege to be your servant. i mean this sincerely.

i hope you will contact me. thank you very much. [applause] >> dr. hazel? > thank you. let me recap a little bit. just so we are all clear. if you have insurance today through your employer and it is a large employer greater than 50, they will likely continue to cover you and that is where you will get your insurance. if you're ex-military, if you have served in the military, you would be eligible for veterans benefits. that does not change. if you are over 65 or disabled and on medicare, that does not change. a lot of people get confused bout medicare and medicaid so that doesn't change.

in virginia, if you are on medicaid currently, that doesn't change, ok? so really a couple of things change. number one is that if you make more than 138% of the federal poverty level, that's about $28,000 for a family of four and under $94,000, then you will be eligible for the tax benefit that ms. grossi has described in the marketplace. that is where you go in october, the benefit does not kick in until january. i know i'm repeating a little bit, but they taught me in school say it again and again. the typical problem you will have in virginia is if you are under 130% of the poverty level and are not covered by medicaid those rules have not changed. they have not changed. the general assembly set up a commission called the medicaid innovation reform commission

and there are five delegates and five senators and they are meeting again for the second meeting. what they basically said in the budget to us is we need some reforms of medicaid before will expand medicaid. they basically said secretary hazel go perform medicaid. -- go reform medicaid. i will tell you a little bit about that. we reformed medicaid back in 1997. we are one of the few states -- and through private companies managed care plans. we have already done that. that is not something will -- we won't be able to do again because we've already done it. there are a lot of people who are not in the managed care plans. we call that fee for service. f.f.f. some call it fend for self. what we are trying to do is bring people into the managed

care plan as some said that is a hassle. what we know in today's world, when you go in for treatment i can tell you about my mom a few years ago. she had pain right here. this is her right upper quad rant. can anybody tell me what my mom had? she was 70 years old. about to have her 50th wedding anniversary. her gallbladder did somebody say? yes, it was. i was an orthopedic surgeon before i became a secretary. mom didn't like that either. you know, i know now that mom was having pain right here. you know she does, she goes to primary care doctor and the hospital in the cardiologist and finally the general surgeon. then she has to go here and there. and two weeks later, she is on the floor in pain and my dad calls. he said bill, nobody will take care of your mother. that is what we have been doing and health care to people. we send them here and there. what we are working with the plans is trying to be better

about ensuring everybody has a medical home, a place where a doctor and his team knows you. they are paid to take care of you and keep you well. 90% of health has got nothing to do with what we call health care today. the other 10% of health is what we're spending most of our money on in health care, and we think that there needs to be some change towards keeping people healthy, and that involves a lot of it. a piece of it is your genetics, can't change that. poor choice of parents we can't do anything about. but what we can talk about is how we eat, how you exercise, whether you can walk in your community, whether you're checked for your cholesterol, preventive testing. so we need to begin to think about how we put this into the package in the medicaid program. what this merc is going to do is one, move more people into managed care. another is to look at changing

some of the roles. we do find that it makes a difference whether people are spending their own money or somebody else's money. we like for people to have a primary care doctor instead of the emergency room where they don't know you, they don't see you again. it's the most expensive place. we'd like to get you in earlier. how can we get the people to get the right incentives to do that? we have reached an agreement with c.m.s., ms. grossi's agency, to help work with people who are dual eligible, folks who are both on medicaid and medicare. currently you kind of fend for yourself, and what we're hoping to do is create a better coordinated care for those folks so that maybe they stay home instead of going to nursing homes in many cases, trying to keep folks in the community as a way of working with that. another thing that we are doing is around behavioral health. we have seen a lot of increase

in behavioral health services that are offered, but maybe no change in the number of folks with diagnoses, no change in the number of folks who are getting medications. but we see a lot of changes and we're wondering whether that's adding any value. so we're looking at creating a behavioral health organization to help manage the care for those people. so we have a number of things that are in the works that we're working with. c.m.s. one right now and they'll present this to the merc and they will decide whether it's sufficient. why are we worried about it and why would someone listen to all this and say, well, we're not ready to expand medicaid? i'll give 'couple of points on that. the united states of america spends 18% of our gross domestic product on health care. 18%. does anybody know what the second most expensive country in the world is? switzerland. they spend 11.5% of their gross domestic product on health care and covers everybody.

now, that 6.5% diffence, you know how big that is? 6.5 -- the whole u.s. defense budget is only 3.5% of gross domestic product. so we're spending almost twice the u.s. defense budget in excess of switzerland on health care, and switzerland is not a cheap country and they cover everybody. now, why is that important? it's important because the employers, as we're trying to hire in and they're paying their share, if they're paying that much more, what happens to our jobs? so we're trying to find a balance here. how can we be sure that what we're getting in health care actually works? how can we help people to stay healthier so that they don't consume as much health care? health care today is kind of like the body shop after the accident. you know, what we want to do is prevent the accident. so these are real concerns. and the folks in virginia, the general assembly, are saying we already spend one in five dollars in virginia's budget on the medicaid program. we already cover about 985,000

virginians through the medicaid program. the reason we had the transportation package and the tax and transportation is because there isn't money for transportation when you're spending it on health care. there isn't money for education when you spend it on health care. there isn't money for homelessness or substance abuse when you're spending it on these. so we're trying to work out the package that will ultimately be sure that we're getting the good quality and health care as we go forward. now, i could go on for a long time. but the keys to this are is that october 1, if you fall into that category of where you're uninsured or working for a small business that's not covering you, then you go to the federal exchange. if you're a medicaid patient we want you to come to common help, which is our portal in virginia for medicaid so we can get you signed up properly. and with that, i'll turn it back to you, congressman, and you can introduce jill. [applause]

>> jill hanken? >> good evening. it is great to be here. thank you so much for the invitation to join you tonight. i do have a few slides. before i get there, i want to say a few words about how hard everybody is working right now to be ready to launch the biggest part of the orderable -- affordable care act starting october 1. i know that people at the federal level are working night and day to make sure everything is in place so we can flip a switch on october 1 and be ready to accept applications and people were applying for new affordable healthcare options. at the state level, starting with secretary hazel, the agencies are working really hard to make sure this is going to work. no one expects a huge new program like this to be trouble-free.

there are always glitches. i think you can understand from what we've been discussing today, this is a huge, huge undertaking. the idea of trying to find ways for 50 million uninsured americans finally to have access to affordable health care. it's just huge. there will be glitches. there will be issues. some of the rules are complex, but i really encourage all of you to spend the time looking at information, calling and asking for help that you need so that you can access the best health care possible for your family. with that, i want to talk more about the medicaid expansion. this is going to be somewhat repetitive. as was said earlier, that is the way we learn. in my mind, one of the biggest questions is whether or not there is going to be coverage for the lowest income virginians. because the affordable care act

was pieced together very carefully in congress so that everyone would have options. as a result of the supreme court decision last year, the medicaid expansion which is in my mind one of the essential pieces of the entire affordable care act was made an option by he u.s. supreme court. that is why states all across the country are making decisions about whether or not to expand medicaid. in virginia, we do not have a positive answer yet. as congressman scott said, we have won of the most restrictive medicaid programs in the -- which way should i stand? one of the most restrictive in the united states. we are ranked 48th. our eligibility levels for parents are really, really low. we do not do anything in virginia for childless adults

even if they have zero income. people that poor cannot get medicaid in virginia. so what the affordable care act would do would be to set a new income eligibility level at 138% of the poverty line, which would be, as we said before, for an individual around $15,000 a year, for a family of four around $32,000 a year. and we believe that up to 400,000 virginians could qualify if virginia adopts the medicaid expansion. who are these people? well, you all know who they are. what about children who are on medicaid? they turn 19. suddenly they're not eligible. but they still have allergies, they still have diabetes, they still have medical issues that they need to have taken care of. just because they're 19 doesn't mean that their health care needs stop. lots of low-income working milies, the families, even

adults without children, don't get health care through their jobs and they are uninsured. because of our low level incomes right now on medicaid they can't get medicaid. understand the affordable care act, they could. a lot of people receive state-funded health services. as was mentioned earlier, some mental health services through community services boards, indigent care at our hospitals. those are folks who probably could qualify for the medicaid expansion. older adults who are waiting for medicare, you know -- we're getting older and lots of problems start happening to us as we get older. but you don't get medicare until you're 65. so what about those folks? if they're low-income people they could get medicaid expansion if virginia adopts it. people who are declared disabled also have to wait for medicare. did you know they have to wait 24 months after being declared

disabled by the social security administration before they can get medicare? these are the kinds of people who we believe would qualify for the medicaid expansion in virginia. it's a great deal. the federal government pays 100% of the costs for the first three years and dr. hazel and his folks -- one of the things they did to work really hard on this was to crunch numbers and to try to figure out what the costs would be to the state to adopt the medicaid expansion. and the numbers up here say it all. we would be bringing in over a 10-year period about $20 billion of federal dollars because they pay 100% of the costs at the beginning and no less than 90% thereafter. and because of all the offsets that we would experience we pay of the folks who for right now -- that could be enrolled in the medicaid program, the cost to virginia over those same 10 years is

$137 million. you're comparing $137 million to $20 billion. i think it's a good deal to move forward. as congressman scott said, that money doesn't just evaporate into space. it's money that goes into our economy, it goes to support health services. the experts say that about 30,000 jobs would be created. so these are the kind of economic benefits that would occur in virginia if we expand medicaid. and without it, this picture -- and i had some handouts in the back. without the medicaid expansion, we really end up with this terrible gap in coverage, which was not the intent of the affordable care act. we have current medicaid at this left-hand side, which is about 30% of the poverty line for low-income parents. but it's really 0% of the poverty line for other childless adults.

and the exchange -- the marketplace is only available with tax credits for people who have 100% of the federal poverty line. so without the medicaid expansion we have this enormous hole in our healthcare system where about 400,000 uninsured people end up. so it's a real problem. secretary hazel talked about the medicaid innovation and reform commission. these are some of the reforms that they're looking at. there are 10 legislators on this commission. they meet again in a week. here are the legislators who are on the medicaid commission. and we're fortunate that there are four legislators from this area, the richmond area, greater richmond area -- senator stosh and senator watkins, delegate o'bannon and delegate massey and secretary azel is on the commission.

yeah. you don't vote. you're example o'fish yo. thank you for injure service there. so just to wrap it up, five reasons to adopt the medicare expansion. number one, the federal funding is available to us to cover more uninsured virginians. our federal tax dollars which support the medicaid expansion ought to come back to virginia and help people in virginia, instead of helping people in other states. health insurance improves health, obviously, but it also provides security and peace of mind to families so that they don't have to worry, if they need health care, that they're going to get huge bills that they can't afford, so they don't have to worry about bankruptcy from unpaid medical debt. and i think all virginians should really reject the idea of a coverage gap where 400,000

people fall into that ravine without any options for health insurance. and finally that economic argument really ought to speak to everyone. 30,000 jobs, $20 billion over 10 years. it's great for virginia's economy and we need to move forward. so with that, i'll stop. i know we'll have a chance to answer questions. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. we were joined briefly by mayor jones, who was here briefly but had to leave. ut i believe members of city council, cynthia newbill is here and member of city council michelle moseby. [applause] they're a mic up here for

questions if anyone has any questions. there are no questions -- yes, ma'am. if you'd come to the mic, we'd appreciate it. if others have questions, please line up at the mic. that would be helpful. yes, ma'am. >> hi, representative scott. i'm proud of what you're doing. i do work and i do have insurance through my company. but i am wondering how can i get on this? hey pay a lot, but if i cannot pay a $15 co-pay, there is no way i could pay a $1500 for me and my boys. how long would it be for somebody like me to wait before i can try and get on to this plan? >> when it said employer is

providing healthcare, they have to provide a certain amount of coverage. they just can't call it health care. but ms. grossi, do you want to answer? >> if you get health insurance through your employer and he provides minimal coverage, 60% plan, the bronze plan you saw up there. if you get a plan where 60% of the benefits are paid for, that's considered minimal coverage, so therefore you're considered to have credible coverage and you cannot go into the marketplace because your employer is already giving you credible health care coverage. >> can i answer this? if you're a small employer -- i don't know who you work for, but they may opt not to cover and let you go into the exchange and there's no penalty. so if it's a small company under 50, you still may end up as the exchange being your best option. the other thing, as we just were discussing, is there is an affordability requirement for your employer. it doesn'teeth minimum

criteria unless it's also affordable. an effort was made in the law to make it roughly equal if you're covered through your employer or not. >> i'm sorry, i should have mentioned that. so if the insurance would cost you more than 9.5% of your income that's considered that the employer is offering you unaffordable coverage and you would be allowed to go into the marketplace. >> oh, ok. thank you. >> sure. >> dr. green. >> good evening. i would like to thank you for being here. i am harold green, a practicing physician for 33 years in the richmond community. i have just a few questions. most of them come from the medical. you stated that 80% of the cost of the businesses would have to go to medical related costs. have they been defined, those medical related costs and will we know what they are? hat is one question.

the other question is on prescription drugs. is that going to be through the h.m.o.'s, or are they going to cover generics? how are they going to do it? or like a tier system? i have a lot of patients that are being hit hard because they have dropped a lot of durable medical, particularly insulin. not insulin is covered but the pens are not being covered. are they going to cover that? are they going to have anything for the doctors? 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% seems like a nightmare to my office. i do not know how we would do it. is there going to be on the card as a co-pay? i do not know.

the other question is, how long is it going to take and are they going to have to stay on the phone forever like we have to stay on the phone the r to get them to plan? >> i have been there not too long ago. >> it is just -- the other thing -- this state as far as medicaid, we have a gap as you said, through this program called v.c.c., virginia coordinated care. we do cover this gap for a lot of these -- in richmond. really in the state of virginia. in the state of virginia. i see people from all over. we do cover that gap. i want to defend medicaid for that. i see a lot of people on v.c.c. that is all of my questions. >> ok.

that's a bunch of them. thank you. >> i will start. i know the secretary wants to add on. you are asking about the 80/20 rule, where insurance companies must provide 08% -- must spend at least 80% of your premium dollars on your medical services. that's what you're asking, right? so that's the definition. they must pay 80% of your premium dollars must be spent on your medical services. as the congressman said it can't be for bonuses to the c.e.o.'s or trips to the bahamas. >> that's been defined? >> absolutely it's been defined. and insurance companies had to start reporting to us starting in the summer of 2012 if they were adhering to that formula, and if not, they had to give you a rebate. 12.8 million americans got a rebate totaling over $2.1 billion. so that's absolutely working the way that we hoped it would. so, yes, that's been defined and in fact they are reporting to us an have been since last

summer. on your call center question, if you don't mind i'm going to answer that. i just heard the data from that this morning. the average wait time is three seconds to get an answer from the call center. so working exactly the way so far we're hoping it will. so we hope you'll call that call center if you have any questions. call the call center number and see. 1-800 318-2596. the average wait time you've been getting an answer in three seconds. and on your drugs question, sir -- again, it's private insurance. you're a doctor, so you know this. it's just like private insurance. it is private insurance. so people are going to get to make decisions about what plan they want and what pharmaceutical co-pays there are, etc. but you'll know that, just like you know it now when you take anyone's private insurance. it is private insurance. i hope that answered all your questions. thank you. >> one more. will it include felons, everyone? >> not quite everybody.

>> there are nine exemptions from people who are required to buy health insurance starting january 1. one of those are incarcerated individuals are not allowed to buy insurance in the marketplace. >> felons, yes. if they're out of jail, convicted felons. >> one of the ways -- >> convicted felons out of jail. >> yes, yes. the group that is not covered are people who are not here properly documented immigration. >> what happens with individuals who are in jails and prisons, if they leave the premise for the night and are under a different roof, they are automatically eligible for immediate cate. it's not an exchange for marketplace, but necessary would be eligible for medicaid. one of the savings that virginia looks like they would get over a 10-year period, roughly $100 million, $90 million. instead of paying for them in jails and corrections, medicaid picks that up when they're getting service outside of the facility.

so that's one. i can't speak to your d.m.e. question related to the private plans. i just don't know the answer to that. the drug formularies would be very much what a private formulary would make. what's interesting when we went through the essential benefit package, dr. green, that matches up pretty well with what a medicaid package is, the base package. the 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% is something that's worked out through the egg change or through the marketplace with -- exchange or through the marketplace with the individual. you won't be involved with that as a physician. they'll come with an insurance card and it will look like any other insurance card which will have their co-payments and deductibles on it. that's always a problem because we had it, too. by way of admission, i think v.c.u. gets the credit for v.c.c. more than medicaid does. but i will tell you that one of the things that we are asking for in the medicaid reforms with the feds is we want a

prenegotiated set of parameters in which we can innovate. and v.c.c., when it's expanded, we'll have a lot of adults come n who have been previously uninsured and we expect them to be high-need individuals. we'd like to sit down and say we'd like to use you, but when you get v.c.c. the current rules don't allow restrictions of networks and restriction of assets. we would have to take that program to c.m.s. and we would have to ask for permission and they'd have to bless it. frankly by the time that was over we'd all be gone. so what we're asking in advance is to be able to do innovative programs like that across the state. that is one of our requirements. >> thank you. >> there's one question you asked about doctors. this one will not directly affect doctors very much. you'll be taking insurance, just like you're taking insurance. but you're going to be asked -- i assume you're going to be asked a lot of questions.

so we need to have a session. so we'll work with you and set one up. >> i said that because of that navigator. st of the time we're the navigators. >> you are going to be the ones asking questions. [laughter] yes, ma'am. and i'm n schreiber, from richmond. i think you've already partially answered my question from the first person. my husband retired four years ago and he, fortunately, is on medicare now. but i, thank the lord, was kept on his insurance poll circumstances but i carry the cost alone now which costs me a whopping $800 a month. now, i was hoping i would be able to take advantage of one of the plans, but i get the feeling i won't be able to from what you said because i am already -- even though i'm not an employee, i am already offered private insurance. is that correct? >> no, no.

since it's employer-based, based on your husband's situation, his former employer -- >> right. >> you're a dependent. i don't think for you it's going to be considered affordable employer-based insurance, since you're the dependent, you're not the employ eefment so -- employee. so we're all not positive about this answer, but i think this may be an option for you to go into the exchange. >> ok. >> and find something that might be more affordable for you. >> ok. so the 9.5% of income as a qualifier applies to his income, not my income, or is it a joint income or -- >> no, they look at -- the income they look at is your family's income. >> ok. >> using tax code rules about who your family is and what

your income is. >> right. ok, all right. so i'd have to go into the exchange and find out whether -- >> i think with a question like that, you really do want to go to the marketplace when it opens. pardon, but jill and i tend to call it exchange because we've been living this thing for three years and we haven't gotten to the new lingo yet. but in a situation like yours, if you aren't dealing with a broker individually then i would go to the marketplace and ask -- >> is it better to deal with a broker? i've never had to. >> not necessarily. >> it was kind of given to me, but -- >> i think that you probably could get your question answered at the marketplace. that's what it's designed to do. >> all right. >> i was going to say, you may. again, that call center is already set up for questions just like that. 1-800-318-2596, 124 hours a day -- 24 hours a day. that's a perfect example of the

call center and finding out if the marketplace is something you can enter. again it is going to depend on the math. again, i'd actually encourage you to call the call >> thank you. >> is the number of material in the back? >> yes. >> business owner. i want more clarity on the pre- existing conditions. i notice you have example about asthma versus diabetes, etc. >> to answer that, and does not matter what your condition is, you can get insurance at the just likerate. everybody else. >> for answers, not if you have asthma versus diabetes, not another rates?or anything like that? >> no. >> the congressman said it. that's one the great things about the affordable care act. from now

onif you have a pre-existing ,condition, you cannot only be denied, you cannot be charged more. againthat becomes true for ,everybody generally 2014. alreadyry 2014.it became effective for children in september 2010. you cannot get charge more and you cannot be denied insurance anymore if you have a pre- existing condition.>> thank you very much. >> virginia has not done community rating before. we started this. the maximum ratio from the most expensive to lease expensive will be 3-1.and sowhat will happen is folks who ,are otherwise healthy may of had a lower premium will probably end up paying a little more. people who had illnesses will

get the advantage of a little less. it is how insurance works. >> and they cannot charge you an arm and a leg? you know what i mean? >> they cannot charge you more. they can charge people more if they smoke. and then for -- there will be an allowable distinction between different ages and geographic locations in the state.but the existing conditions and do not matter at all for me it -- at all. used to not matter.it be that women were paying more for their health insurance, just because they were women, but that is gone. really, there's a lot less discrimination going on with the new plans. >> last year 625,000 americans were denied insurance because of

pre-existing conditions. for us, it is a great day when no longer anybody can be denied health insurance because they have a pre-existing condition. >> thank you. >> yes, ma'am? >> and i say one thing? this really works if people sign up. because you cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions, you should not wait until you wreck. before you get signed up. you should sign up before. because if not everybody is paying in and participating,those who do the responsible andright thing will have to pay more. that is how it works. you have to sign up. will i have to go out

and buy health insurance? >> you do not qualify for the normal medicaid program, which means you will stay on vcc until virginia decides how it is going to handle medicaid. >> if i want to get off vcc, i can go out and buy insurance if i want to insured? i do not have to, right? >> it will depend on a lot of things like if you are married how if you have children. much money you make and things like that. so there are a lot of things going to those decisions that we would know. if you think you would be eligible for medicaid, you would

theoretically have it if it is expanded. you can also check the change and see if you qualify for that. that means if you are a family of four with an income under 20,000. >> if we do not expand, people who would've gotten the medicaid card are in a situation where we have not anticipated. expected that everybody would get a medicaid card for a about $30,000. if you do not get medicaid, you cannot afford the cost of insurance in the exchange. you have to make a certain income to get into the marketplace. under that, you are supposedly a medicaid card. there's an awkwardness if we do not expand.i assume that if you are in vcc, you are above medicaid will

probably would get covered if we accept the expansion. if we do not expand, we do not really know what is going to happen.>> ok. >>that is one of the reasons why we are asking dr. hazel to do the right thing. like i said, virginia -- >> and you are going to get me fired, congressman.[laughter] >> going through a thoughtful process before they sign up. that is why virginia is in better financial shape than the national government. when they get to the end of the process, they would notice that many of the problems of not expanding. let's go through the process. >> can i add one thing we have

not mentioned? there is another option. for those who fall in the gap right now, we have federal qualified health centers. they welcome folks who fall in the cracks to be there medical home. they will like for those folks to come in to this community health centers. it is not a substitute for an insurance package, but it is a place to go and get care and bh watch to other services -- be a >> ine to other services. richmond, he is talking about one place. >> they cannot meet the demand. that is our problem. >> it is not a perfect option. it is something in the interim. >> thank you. >> good evening. i am chris. frustrated insurance agent. this is a great outreach program. glad to be here. you mentioned earlier about the tax credits for small business owners. is there a limit on the number of years of that tax credit that

is allowed for the business >> at least three, i think. >> >> three years. >> second question i have is -- i am sorry, can you hear me now? it is not a verizon commercial. how do you fill about the bill on august 2 up in washington? eliminating the limit of $2000 deductible for a small employer plan. i have many clients here and have a $3000 deductible and the employer plays -- pays the last $1000 of the deductible. i am being told that cannot be january 2014. it was dropped two fridays ago to eliminate that caveat. how do you stand on that?

>> i am not sure exactly. >> i know the problem but not this particular bill. do you know the sponsors? >> mr. thompson introduced the following bill. to illuminate the limitation of the deductibles from employer sponsored health plans. they are not required to offer they are good people. they want to do something.for their employers. i am having the small employers being told this. >> if a small employer is not required to do anything, what ever they do, i do not see where the limitation would be. they do not have to do anything. for a large employer, it would be different. the minimum coverage. >> the issue is he i do not believe the higher deductible plans meet the minimum that have been put into place. >> if you are a small employer, you are not obligated to do anything to do anything. >> if it does not meet the qualifications, the individual

goes to the exchange. it is too much out-of-pocket. that is the requirement. >> they lose a contribution and pay with post-tax dollars. >> and get the tax credit dollars? >> possibly. >> correct. >> i will look at that. that has not been debated at all. thank you. >> you asked about the tax credit. it is up to 50%.just so you know. the only way you get it is by purchasing the health insurance through the shop. as a market change -- that is the market place. i just want to make sure you know that.

if you have anymore questions about the marketplace for small business owners, please contact me at the e-mail. i would be happy to help you out. >> thank you very much. you for informing us of new things coming down the pipeline. my name is henry. i am a combat veteran, retired navy. my group is veterans helping veterans. we work with a lot of veterans and women within abuse. you touched somewhat on the incarceration. as you know, we are going to have a lot of combatants coming back. it'll be high rates of ptsd

which will take a lot of dollars andtake care of and treat. as you know, we have both male and females in the war. back in vietnam, it was dealing with the war and threat. now, when we look at tri-care and plus, it is going up. how will this new program of veterans be able to participate in that if they cannot meet all of their requirements through tri-care? >> go ahead. >> sorry, sir, do you mean if they were not able to qualify for tri-care, what happens to them? they can get their health insurance in the marketplace.

and also be able to get tax credits, the financial assistance for the premiums if they meet that federal poverty line. but everyone who does not qualify for tri-care can go into the market ways. -- anybody who does not qualify for tri-care can go into the market place. >> will you be doing a training orientation for our veterans? a lot of them are homeless and incarcerated and dealing with ptsd. and we have a high unemployment rate we must address. >> on the ptsd, what is good about the policy is it will be available on january 1 where it will contain significant mental- health coverage.>> ok. >> so that will be extremely helpful from that perspective. if they

are unemployed, depending on medicaid expansion, if we expand medicaid, they will be eligible for a medicaid card. >> some of the veterans, as we try to file complaints for pension, but if they have a battery discharge, they cannot a bad discharge, they cannot qualify nor healthcare unless it is military or combat related. unless it is military or combat related. >> if they are under $30,000, they would get a medicaid card. above that, a sliding fee, up to $94,000. they will be able to buy insurance at an affordable rate. >> and i wanted to mention that part of the outreach and enrollment that needs to be done is to reach out to uninsured veterans and there are tens of

thousands ofuninsured veterans in virginia. we know that. groups like yours that work directly with veterans have some options. you can become a certified application counselor and get training from the federal government so you can help provide information and give advice to the people you are working with. also, application a sisters can help people with this process. a lot of different groups are stepping up to the plate to do that kind of outreach. i agree that veterans represent a very important group of when needed good counseling and advice as we move into this new world. >> absolutely. i can be reached at --

[laughter] by the way, congressman scott -- we also worked with -- >> you worked with my brother? >> she is not finished with you, sir. [laughter] >> i am sorry. i want to reiterate. if they get health insurance in the marketplace, these remember mental-health services as part of the benefits. every plan must offer mental health services. we are doing webinars. if you go to the va website, their whole documents of pages on the affordable care act and how they can get into the marketplace. i encourage you to go to veterans administration website. there are lots of pages on the affordable care act and what it so i for veterans, encourage you to go to that

website. >> i encourage you to do the orientation. most of us come back and to take a lot of patience and training to get a proper diagnosis. some are not friendly nor do they have the patience. that is why a lot of veterans and do not seek the opportunities. >> i wanted to add a couple of things. it is good to have the coverage. what we are concerned about is the lack of folks to do the work and take care of people. we do not have the army of military health professionals to handle the volume. that's what we are working on. we'll be asking for grant money. what we have talked about in the affordable care act is the innovation fund. we are looking at trying to do a

better job of incorporating mental health into the physical health practice as a way of expanding capacity. it is a couple of things. have you hooked up with the wounded warrior program? kathy wilson? >> i am familiar with kathy wilson. >> there are a couple of things there. we have a homeless initiative with the working. the good news is we have change policy. since january, we have reduced it by 18%. we are pleased with that. a disproportionate number of veterans are in that group. if you ask folks if they are veterans, they do not respond. if you ask if they have served, they will say yes. then we can identify because they were not answering the questions. they need peers and we are trying to bring more. you do not know unless you have

been there. >> one last thing. i am a peer counselor. with the incarcerated group, i am working with another gentleman. we are going to try to train the incarcerated people and get them certified and hopefully, we can take advantage of some the abandoned houses that we can put veterans and. thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you for your service and helping. before you ask a question, are there other questions after these two? ok. other questions? ok.se seem to be the last 4. yes, ma'am. >> my name is gloria gray.

i am a schoolteacher. last year, and the city of richmond and i was a across virginia, we went through unique changes as far as our contributions to social security and our health insurance policy changed. the company we were dealing with the cost of insurance went up. a lot of us found that we had to do some very unique things in order to cover our health insurance. myself, rather than carry my son and i, when my insurance policy on it was cheaper for me to stay under my insurance with my job. but to pick up an insurance policy for him, because it was cheaper for me. i found that a lot of us had to do it. some of my colleagues or other

people who did work for the city actually -- and they were unable. when you think about social security, furlough days, you have to become very creative and what you do so you can get to the coverage. well, fortunately, my son got a full-time job -- a part-time job. what i think is unique is the company he works for did offer him an insurance policy which was cheaper than i was paying for him. what i and concerned about is the uninsured, that gap, he may be, one of those areas part-time jobs are even less secure than a full-time job. i am wondering what his options would be if that happened?

would i be required to cover him under my insurance because i do not write them -- right now? >> you are not required but you are welcomed to. >> he is 21.he is a college student.so i can cover him to 26. when all of the changes -- my take-home pay, i had to come up with anything that was more feasible.that i could, and a lot of us have found ourselves in the situation. >> i understand. you are not required. what is available, anybody under 30 can get a catastrophic plan. there will be a catastrophic plan in the marketplace specifically for young adults. under the age of 30, so this is very low premium.as the name applies, it is to cover catastrophic circumstances of hospitalizations.

they are going to be available. it is something he could look into. >> even if he lives with me? >> yes. >> if he is employed, he can get the financial assistance from the federal government to help pay for his premiums. he would want to look into the marketplace. or better for him to get insurance through the marketplace and he could get the subsidies to pay for the premium and co-pay. >> i would like to confirm affordability. i work for a company that has about 4000 employees nationwide. our insurer said this past year doubled on premiums. the minimum plan they offer is 35% of our income. does that qualify me or my wife for affordable care, the since it is 35%n?

of my income? that is minimum. that is the small plan. >> your employer-based insurance costs you 35% of your income? >> correct. >> was it an employee only plan do you know what it would cost you? that is the way they will evaluate affordability. >> it just me, and trust to 26%. >> it will be deemed unaffordable. it exceeds 9.5% areas if it is over of your family income, you could go to the exchange and probably find something that is cheaper that would bring the tax credit. >> what has gotten me confused is when this plan was brought out, it was brought up as a bill or care plan areas when they

went before the supreme court, it was argued as a tax. since it was a tax by chief justice roberts, i will grant to this and i agree with it and did pass. what gives president obama the right to exempt anybody from abouten you are talking the bill, which most of them did not read anyway -- >> you are talking about delaying the employer-based mandate? >> yes. he exempted that in the middle of the night. >> first, technically, the supreme court called it and not

a tax before they called it a tax. they had to answer, was is it a tax? if it is, the law is you cannot sue to invalidate a tax until you have paid it. you do not pay it until 2014. if they ruled ruled it a tax, they would have to throw it out. later, they said you can do it under your tax authority. they called a tax after that. whether it is a tax or not is a lucid. on the question of if the president has the authority to delay the implementation of a tax, to some people, the answer is they have been doing it all the time. if it is a question of starting the regulations if you cannot get them done or for usability purposes, you need to delay it.

it happens all the time. several times under the bush administration. they did under a number of taxes. you can delay it, but not forever. you can only do it while you are getting things under order. the courts have ruled. it happens all of the time. nobody complains when president bush and did it. it was not as big a deal because people were not watching. everybody is watching the affordable health care act. delaying the effective date of a tax happens all of the time. and the president to do that has only been questioned when president obama did what everybody else did. [applause] >> my question was not about the delay. it was about the exemption.such as he granted it to you at your entire staff. you are exempt from this program.

and then he gave it to all of the unions, and they said that he did. 10 different unions. >> what happened in congress was in the bill. we are the only employees and the country members of congress and the staff are the only employees in congress that lose their health insurance and have to go into the exchange. after we wrote it, we noticed that we're getting health insurance as a benefit. we go into the exchange again if we still want to get some benefit. to have the insurance. you know, i'm not sure they got the final decision. the result is we would be no worse off than before we went in the exchange. that's what's going on in congress. i thought you were talking about the ememployer mandate. >> no, the exemption. >> thank you. >> yes, sir. am my name is thurgood, and i

a licensed person to sell insurance. i don't particularly care for health insurance, but i, too have to go and read about health insurance. so i learn a little something and sometimes i don't. because there are a whole lot of definitions when you go intothe hipaatraining, and it gets very involved. but in reading the literature, you talk about the health insurance, they talk about the members of congress. ahat means the members of bronze plan and a gold plan? >> let me say this. the members of congress will be getting the same kind of plan that the marketplace asks everybody else. because members of congress, like i said, are the only employees in the country that cannot keep the insurance that we got. we go into the exchange.

so i was paying attention, just like you were, because that's what i have to be getting. >> that might answer my next question. you-all have ductibles and go- pays? >> we will get the same policy like i said, i was paying attention what was going on just like you were. >> and my other question is, we have an insane congress. any time you try to repeal a law that's been approved by the supreme court, you try to repeal it for the times. that's an example of doing the same thing over and over looking for different results. and it has been 40 times. what is it so bad about this affordable care act that those other people -- you all know who i'm talking about. come on. they aret real.

accountable to us. this is the deal. what is so bad about it that they want to repeal it so bad? is it that they don't want to have the same type of health insurance other people have? or they just want to keep on -- i don't know what they want to do. >> congressman, would you like me to try to interpret that, or -- >> what's so bad about it? >> sir, i'll try to answer a little bit and i'll bail the congressman out a little bit. the congressman and his staff will have the same insurance. as a result of that, they lost what they had before, which was through this program called the federal health insurance benefit, which was a real good deal. now he is going to get the same insurance plan that you might get if you are in the exchange.

there are some differences in the ememployer contribution to it that is different. that's not the reason the republicans have been going after this. i can assure you of that. that's the least thing they care about in all of this. do you want me to tell you what i think of this or not? >> help me out. >> i will tell you. and this is the hard part of the discussion. i have a 3-year-old granddaughter. when my granddaughter was born three years ago, her share of the federal debt was $44,000. now, the unfortunate thing is this year her share of the federal debt is $54,000. every man, woman, and child in america owes a piece of that debt. now what congress has not figured out how to do is balance the

budget. i think the essence of this program, and we talk about this money coming in, and 90% forever, the question is, who is paying for it? we borrow all this money from china. china has a billion people in the navy. we have to pay them back one day.i am not trying to judge, but i think that is what the essence of the discussion is. it boils down to, i'm not trying to judge what i'm telling you, but i think the essence here of what they are talking about is what is the proper of role of government and what is the proper role of the taxpayers and how much more of this should be taxed, paid for, and how much should be spent. that's really what this is caught up in. it's not about congress' benefits. not this time anyway. >> one of the things when we passed obama care, we made some

changes in medicare. i think everybody in here remembers $716, the number of billions of dollars.we raised taxes. when the dust settles, the congressional research service estimates that there will be more paying for it than there are services.the budget will be better off, and a lot more better off in the future because of obama care. that it the suggestion is the fiscal responsibility issue. there is nothing wrong with looking at the numbers, but the numbers are in stark contrast of the medicare prescriptive drugs. that got passed and did not get paid for. that went straight to the bottom line deficit. that's where the deficit is cuts. from.we passed tax

we are not paying for them. that's how they got in the ditch they are in. obama care we very meticulously made sure, and a tv commercial is one of them, because everybody is running on how you pay for them. we like to run on the benefits. unfortunately if you are doing it right, have you to do both. when you talk about repealing obama care, you get the sense you can repeal obama care without repealing the taxes that paid for it. if a lot of people think if you started from scratch, the deficit would be worse. we wanted to make sure those things would be paid for. there is nothing wrong with raising the question, but the answer is that obama care was more than paid for and the next 10 years, it is going to be even more.

one thing about health care, people saying about medicare and medicaid going up and up and up, out of control. well, that is not a medicaid sure or medicare problem as much as it is a med medical problem. you ask any of the physicians in here that have been prescribing health care for their employees for 20 years, 30 or 40 years ago, everybody got family coverage, no problem. then after a few years, well, we'll give you coverage, but you have to pay for your family. after a few years, you pay for your family and some of your own. then it is about 50-50. then we'll get a group policy because it is cheaper, but you have to pay the whole thing. i mean, if you draw that mine line, medical care has been going out of control. and if the medicaid programs are paying medical expenses, obviously they are going to have big challenges. so we have to get medical care expenses under control, and to a large extent obama care is

encouraging people to do that. they are encouraging hospitals to get it right for the first time. if you go back to the hospital, we're not going to pay for that admission the second time anymore that if you go to the shop and you drive it out and it's broken, are you going to pay for it again? no. and i think a lot of the things secretary hazel has been talking about, how you pay the doctors. more comprehensive. finally get the medical costs under control. if medicare doesn't pay it up, then you pay the expenses fpble -- the expenses. somebody got a much bigger hit than most people on average. the health care costs have been going up every year.

last year's increase was the smallest they have had in about half a century. next year people will be paying 25% less for an individual healthcare costs have been going up every year. last year's cost was less than in half a century, and next year, a lot of people are going to be paying less for an individual policy than they are paying now. in new york, it is about 50%. some will be paying 50% of what they are paying now. so obama care making sure everybody is covered. and that's going to control the cost a little bit. but medical care problems are

the challenge that we're dealing with. medicare and obama care are just symptoms of it. >> if it was paid for, if it was law, so it is being paid. basically it just adds to the deficit. >> hi.uestion. i am brenda hicks. i have a question about the providers. is there a mandate for providers to participate. it is great to have insurance, but you need someone to accept it. are they going to be on the system the way they are paid for medicaid or medicare? the private -- is there some kind of mandate to compel these hospitals or corporations so that once you have this insurance somebody is going to actually accept it for payment? >> the answer in short is no. some states have looked at it. massachusetts has tried that in the past. but the answer so that is no.

it is not a mandate. i think one of the challenges we find on the medicaid side right now. we pay medicaid costs 75%. we pay about 70% of that, per state. that's one of the things we have to consider. we're already cost shifting 30% on to everybody else. we, the government program of medicaid and medicare. medicare has been typically below cost, too. so it becomes a little bit of an unfunded burden on providers. it has to be worked out. you can't have a sustainable long-term program when you promise something but yet you don't pay for it. >> there is one other thingobama care is doing, and that is

providing funding. are building up the number of providers. >> that's what i wanted to say, congressman. just a number of private health insurance. >> just like a doctor is not required to take insurance from any company. we are under a -- we are increasing -- it is a great time right now if you are interested in get -- into the health care field that you can get loan forgiveness or scholarship funding. we realize it is important to increase the health care work >> and i think obama care is a great start. >> thank you. we want to remind everyone, we had information passed out at the table. the number to call is 11-800-

within96 for your answer. three seconds. [laughter] so call that answer and we can answer some of the questions we have had trouble with. i want to thank you for coming in.for participating. october 1 you can start signing october 1,up for our coverage. tell your friends, january 1, everybody, all americans will be able to afford health insurance for the first time after 100 years of trying. thank you. give our panelists a round of applause. thank you very much.[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] later today when we focus on same-sex marriage issues. we will have an event from the sanford fiscal bar association, which revealed the ruling that came down earlier this year.

we will have a look at some of these comments. ,> you all recall the strategy looking at gay couples as different and even deviant and even not worthy as something as special as marriage and certainly not good enough to be parents, and the children who we love dearly and their friends that we love dearly and all of the other children that we want to help, that was just too much to tolerate, and it was hard to be in court when that was going back and forth. advertisementse and how they were not worthy, and our children were there, and i think it was a bad experience, and i hope someday, we will see what we saw and heard in that courtroom, because even though they wanted to convince the judge that they were right, they had no evidence, and they could not back up any of their claims, and i think that is what we wanted, the witnesses that we

had, 17, compared to the two they have, to explain how meaningful and helpful marriage is, that people who are married are healthier and wealthier, that they are happier in many cases, and that their lives are enriched by marriage, and certainly knowing that you have the option to be married is helpful. so that was the great part of that. that was the good news that came out of their side, and the bad news was the news that came out from their side. a couplean experience of days ago. i was renting a car, and chris said,t with me, and they are you the only driver, and i said, do they have to be here? and they said, oh, no, as long as you are married, and i said i am married. [laughter] that was my first kind of cool

little benefits, and then, ok, i would just put your husband's name down. my wife.o, it is >> and he said, i am sorry. i will put down spouse. yes, put down spouse and change your forms. so they do not ask anybody. but i am so used to do the word partner and having that feeling like that. it feels sort of bad. it does feel second-class. it is second-class. i never aspired to be a partner in my life. but it has been working out pretty well. so it really does change. i got my fourth ring, because we are gay people, to celebrate our

marriages. calm her. felt i felt my heart rate and blood pressure went down a little. things are going to be ok. this is real. our families are going to understand it better, and we can stop fighting and being in court about it. and i a lot calm her, feel more legitimate in some bizarre way in this world, because in our country, in our society, marriage means something. comments from the san francisco bar association event on same-sex marriage. again, you can watch that entire event starting at 5:45, and we will follow that with a live town hall meeting, and we will talk with journalists and legal analysts about some of the effects on the same-sex marriage and they area,

facing challenges to the same- sex marriage law, and we will also take your facebook and twitter messages. yesterday, the national press club examined the role of government public affairs offices and whether they help or hinder transparency. journalists and former officials taking part in the conversation agreed to that trust and good communication between them are crucial in order to get information out to the in a timely manner. the committee chair moderates this one hour, 15 minute torsion. >> welcome to the national press club, and for this evening's discussion as to whether or not federal public affairs offices have become a hindrance more than a help, with open government, or, if you like, our shorter title. my name is john donnelly, and i am a reporter with "c

andessional quarterly," there is the sponsor of tonight's event, and you can find out more about the national press club and membership therein at press.org. we are the leading organization in the world for journalists. tonight's broadcast is being broadcast on that website, and it will be archived there later. it is also being broadcast on c- span two. if you were following us on twitter, the #is open government. and there will be more,pao and reporters. paoandreporters@blogspot.com.

i should disclose that i am biased for as much openness and disclosure as possible and as few rules as possible about who can talk, but i also recognize, and i really mean is, that public affairs has an indispensable job to do. but i would like to make a few comments just to set the stage for tonight's comments. our discussion tonight is about the growing and some say harmful role placed on public affairs offices and the federal government. the complaints that we hear from reporters are about requirements that public affairs officers, present, that questions must be in advance, and that certain people are there to say certain things.

the courts have actually sided with these rules. they have found that they do not have and him bridled right to free speech. information, there was a 2006 ruling, a narrow -- 5-4., 5 -- four, garcetti. it does not appear that these rules are going anywhere. sometimes, it is a hard and fast requirement. if you are an employee, you talk to reporters off-line, but with many agencies, the rules are not required. be that it seems to is not good for your career to

talk to a reporter off-line, even if the subject is not classified or proprietary. now, a couple of weeks ago, we had the former nsa whistleblower, thomas drake, at a press club lunch, and he said obtainey are seeking to or renew security clearances, and they are investigated, one of the questions they are asked at least some of the times is whether the employee has ever had unauthorized contact with a reporter, not just involving proprietary information but any unauthorized contact. to a lot of us, this is disturbing, because we thought by asking that question in that context, they are sending the message, intentional or not, that speaking to the press off- line is for bitten and could even you a security risk. now, obviously, the bradley manning and edward snowden leaks have raised the temperature on

this issue considerably, particularly at the security agencies, and this message was made in a really hard-core way in a june 2012 defense department document about a so- called insider threat program, and it was obtained recently by a news organization, and it isd, quote, leaking tantamount to aiding the enemies of the united states. close quote. seniorould be a lot of officials that would be in a lot of trouble. of course, it is not equally applied. and the net effect of all of this is a real deterrent of people speaking to the press outside of official channels, and let's face it. speaking to people outside official channels and sometimes has to happen, often has to happen, for the truth to come out, rings we need to hear as americans. now, having said that, let me be clear about a couple of things. we reporters appreciate public

affairs offices when they help, and they very frequently do, and i do not know anybody who wants to get rid of them, and even if they do, that is not going to happen, so that is not for discussion now, including the rules about what a government employees can or cannot say. this is probably not going anywhere. most reporters understand the job a public affairs to make sure that agencies point of view is expressed coherently and that those are not confused with official policy. i am going to turn and introduce our panel in just a second, but my last thought is that the pentagon has an interesting idea of what they call about relations with the media, and it says the public affairs officers should act as liaisons but should not interfere with the reporting process. that sounds like a great summer read to me i where we should end up.

of course, here would probably agree with that. defining whatin constitutes interference, and i hope we get the answers tonight, so here is how it is going to work. i am going to introduce our panel and then give each of them a chance to weigh in on their overall take of the issue, and then we will have some q&a time, and then we will open it up to you in the audience, so now, let's go ahead and meet our panel. working this way down. is a former associated press reporter and assistant university near atlanta and the author of two surveys on the relationship between public affairs staff and the press. thosell talk about surveys this evening. next is katherine, a freelance reporter and a member of the freedom committee, who has extensively researched this issue. then comes linda peterson, the managing editor of the valley

journals of salt lake, the freedom of information chair for the society of professional journalists, and the president of the utah foundation for open government. to my left and you're right, ofy is the managing partner a strategic communications and crisis management consultancy. tony is also an on air contributor on the cnbc business news network, and he was formerly the deputy assistant under george w. bush and principal deputy secretary, and john is the president elect of the national association of government communicators. so starting with carolyn, give us your overview. >> well, i am going to tell you about a couple of surveys we are conducting, this year and the previous year that relates to the topic we are discussing tonight. reporters who cover

federal agencies in washington, about 146 respondents, with a margin of error of about seven withnt, and this deals former and current members of government communicators, 154 3%, and myabout questions focused on the interviewing process. first, i want to talk about preapproval. 98% of public affair officers believe they have a better idea about who would be the best person to give an interview on a given topic. three quarters of journalists report that they have to get canoval before they interview an agency employee, and seven out of 10 employees say the requests for interviews are forwarded for selective

routing to whoever is suggested. about half of the reporters are prevented from interviewing all together at least some of the time. 18% say it happens most of the time. say theys of the po's are justified in refusing to grant interviews when they are threatened or when it might reveal damaging information. pao's know that journalists want to go around them. however, say0, they will referred the reporter when they have been contacted directly. and, of course, more than half of the reporters say they do try circumvent atnd

least some of the time. as far as trust, the majority trusthere are none they to contact staff directly without going through the public affairs office, and all but talk aboutrd contacting staff before going through the public affairs office, and most of the time, these were long-time beat reporters. in contrast, there were 39% of who said the specific wasrters they prohibited due to problems with their stories in the past, so they banned certain reporters.

there were problems with their stories in the past. on the issue of monitoring, two thirds feel it is necessary to supervise or otherwise monitor interviews with agency staff. 85% of reporters say they get monitored at least some of the time. some of the time, and one third said most of the time, and some said all of the time that they get monitored. this is a good way to make sure the agency staff is doing the said theynd about 40% ,se these to dispute misquotes however, only 70% say they have required reporters to do that before publication. three fourths said they do not require prepublication review.

so i asked it attitude questions, and it is pretty clear. statement considered government agency controls over who i interviewed to be a form of censorship. theercent side agreed that government was not getting the information needed by agencies imposing and journalistic practices. plo attitudes were also unclear, the controlling media coverage is an important part of protecting the reputation. making sure that accurate, positive information from the agency is conveyed to the public. that is ready issue stands.

reporters in washington and public affairs officers. >> thank you. catherine? ago, somelong reporters walked the halls of agencies in unique, critically needed graduate schools. they talked to and got to know staff, stories, perspective, and education. just like this was the united states are something. over the last 20 years, leaders have created a surge of blocking reporters from communicating to staff unless they are tracked and or monitored by the public the public-cers, relations controllers. it is massive, pernicious censorship that is now a cultural norm.

no matter what they know, employees are prohibited from ever communicating with us without guards working at the behest of the bosses and the political structure. it is people in power stopping the flow of information to the public according to their own ideas and desires. united states prohibit people from speaking without reporting to the authorities? sornalists, why are we buffaloed? this is not some sort of in a violent way of life, it is just a power grab that officials started pouring resources into relatively recently. the impact is drastic. i estimate that for many specialized reporters, communication with staff is down 90%.

the writing, the debilitating effect of silencing people. the grave diggers at arlington cemetery knew about the jumble of graves for years. janitors at penn state knew about the child abuse for years. so, what do we not know now? public, fdag, in says congress has not given the agency all that it requested for monitoring the skyrocketing pharmaceutical imports. 40% of drugs now come from overseas. we urgently need reporters talking to fda people in policy jobs and in the front line inspecting jobs, away from the sensors. regularly. not just on big investigations.

keepthe import situation staff people up at night? mode, in pre-disaster waiting for bodies to show up before we get serious? or not? what would staff say away from the guards? it is something because it always is. inhumane tocal and kill or confine information gathering. with millions of people silenced in thousands of public and private workplaces of various moral persuasions, reporters cannot hope that our skill and hard work are making up for this. righthical burden is now on journalists. we can fight this, or we can be the into world partner in

ingraining it for the future. a warning about compromises. in our weakened state, some reporters say that they will go through the pio controls if they will just let me through without the delays, monitoring, blockages that have become so stunningly aggressive. that is a sellout of free speech. we will be passing on sterilized stories, modeling public understanding -- modeling public understanding while lending power to an agency or political administration. and we ourselves, the reporters, will not see the difference. finally, question. why don't we, instead, have tracking and monitoring of all of the communications of all the agency leadership? thank you.

catherine and carolyn have both done a good job at portraying what it is like at the federal level, but i want to talk about more than that. many of you may, in the frustration of your job in washington, d.c., have thought that maybe you should give up here and go to some backwoods community where i will not have to go through all of this, where i can just sit down and chew the fat with the mayor. i am here to tell you that there is no such community anymore. these policies, the way of doing business of government have not just trickled down, but have poured down to the smallest communities in our country. my papers cover eight communities, suburbs of salt lake city, with populations of anywhere from 10,000 100,000 people and we deal with this on a regular basis. we can understand that the

federal level there can be the reasoning of national security, there can be the reasoning of national policy. but in a small community of 10,000 people it can get ridiculous. this spring i called a small community park and wreck person to find out the time of the local easter egg hunt. he told me he could not tell me because he had been instructed not to speak to the press. fortunately i went around him and found out the time for those many hundreds of parents and kids who wanted to show up. we get to this point all the time in the smaller communities. most of the time the news that we cover is not earth shattering, it is of the day to day life that we live, the impact, the storm drain project you are so curious about because last year you sucked out 1 foot of water from your basement or the road repair you want to know about because, heck, it seems

like you have been driving on the right road with orange cones forever. these of the things that they are obstructing us to find out about. we are running into the same situations in our neck of the woods, where they wanted to sit in with the engineer as they talk about road based and death and things like that. truthfully i do not think that the pao would have the first clue of the engineer screwed up and said it backwards. often because we cover these day in and day out, we know more than cio. a while ago, closer than 9/11, we were doing a story on the water tank, a 500 million gallon water tank in this rural community. i asked for the address and he told me that he could not give me the address because of homeland security concerns.

well, i do not know about you but i really do not think that a suburb of salt lake city in utah is a primary target for al qaeda. but he would not give it to me. what we did was we got in the car and we drove out to approximately where we knew it was. it is hard to hide a 500 million gallon tank. we wrote down the address and we published it. nothing happened. al qaeda must have us way down on their to do list. in suburban salt lake city we are just fine. these of the kinds of things we're dealing with. that weave great pio's work with to understand they are truly there to facilitate the flow of information, not control divert it andt to -- not to divert it, but to let it happen.

we all understand that knowledge is power and anyone who is a teenager knows that information is power. that is what we are seeking. we are not generally seeking to expose great conspiracies, although we need to do that when that happens. there were no weapons of mass destruction ever found in iraq. i do not know if the government is still looking, but we are still waiting. on the local level there may be instances of nepotism but most of the time it is the great healer, day in and out things you want to know about. what is happening with the kids in the schools? the city council? are they going to raise your property taxes? pio's that get in the middle of that misunderstand what the processes about. none as of yet have never had a formal vote on a city, state, or federal business.

why does the government think that the public wants to hear everything that happened from them when it is an issue you are concerned about, you want to know from your councilman -- why did you vote that way? not from the second or third party. to say --ters like well, that is just the way it is, a good reporter, i just get around them. not the point. first of all, there are not that many good reporters left and the ones coming out of school are a fearful generation and are happy to do what they are told, happy to ask permission, which is a very scary prospect. i find that time and again i hire them and fire them because it is at my level they come to work and at my level they say -- if i ask the mayor that, it will make him mad. said it was a good

story. my responses -- right? there is the door. we cannot just sit still and wait for someone else to stand up to this. as catherine pointed out, this americanited states of and the mandate is to report the truth, not what they report is the truth or even what the pio thinks is the truth, the truth as we can find it. whether it is the time of an easter egg hunt or a national policy. this is america, the land of the free, the land of the free press. the public of the united states of america has the right to disinformation. thank you. >> thank you. >> [indiscernible] [laughter]

whenever we have these discussions, and it happens a , these public affairs officers are often portrayed as uninformed booze and reporters are universally good. what is the opposite? that reporters are evil scoundrels looking to embarrass public officials and make a mockery of the policy-making process and the only thing standing between these people and print our public affairs officers. my experience in 20 years of this is pretty much a normal bell curve distribution of talent, among both public affairs officers and reporters. meaning that among reporters and public affairs officers, some are really not very good, right?

some are excellent. the vast majority are average to above-average. the ones really below average tend to get out of the business on either side. that is what you're going to see and one reason why there are a lot of rules. undoubtedly there are a lot of obstacles to a really good relationships, some of which you just heard. let me look at it from both sides on this. i will start with just a list of some of the obstacles on the official side, the press officers side, some of them on the media side, and then talk about the problems and i hope we can get into some of these, you know, this discussion a bit more when we get into questions. on the official side, we talked about trust and i hope we get to talk more about trust. one reason that trust has eroded, it is a simple thing,

the use of the mail. technology is great and efficient, but reporters and press officers do not actually talk much anymore. so much of it is done over e- mail, new ones goes away. when you talk to someone you can develop trust. forget about meeting in person. there was a time and you had to meet reporters in person and that is less prevalent today. some reporters only communicate through direct message on twitter. it is sufficient but not quite the same. some people think that this is good, if you can remain with a is an awful tradition and i can tell you that it exists.

some press officers do not understand how difficult it is to master their issues, the policy-making issues, day-to-day news and what is going on. have to work really hard at it and there is still fear about dealing with what may or may not be bad news. if you speak to anyone in my profession today where i advise people, every professional will tell you to put out the bad news on your own terms. push it out, explain it, tell your story, do not let it come out in disjointed way is, but the courage to do that is really lacking. on the media side, there is also ignorance, right? there are some terrific reporters out there, more and

more of them with knowledge and experience are exiting the business. it is really, really rare to find really good reporters with the length of time on a beach that it takes to master the beat. before i went to the white house i was in the treasury department for five and a half years dealing with complex economic issues and those reporters are were brilliant. the reporters today are so young and overt -- older reporters come from very expensive produced organizations, exiting the business and these young, inexperienced reporters have a steep hill to climb. the news is so fast, right? the speed of delivering the news today? is result in the bias publishing first, you can publish, correct, update it 10 to 20 minutes later. you have the whole day to allow

a news story to achieve some level balanced reporting. that is the world we live in. i do not complain about it, but it changes the nature of how we deal with reporters. what is news? there used to be a time when there was news and opinion. opinion was found on the editorial page or the op-ed page. now we have blogs, news analysis, and reporters to go to offer opinion commentary on television and right straight news for the news pages, reporters who treat their opinions but also right straight news stories. so, talk about reporters not being allowed to have opinions? but wee has opinions, see it more now.

there is far more news analysis from the reviews of reporters, that is on the reporters side also. too many times i have gotten that phone call at 4:30 in the afternoon or the story that has already been written looking for the administrative response. we need that line to put in the last draft of the story to it published. go back and look at home -- how many times there is a " in the last wrap of the story. is an awful way to develop trust between reporters, officials, and public affairs officers.

finally, it makes for a much better story. in the middle of the policy- making process, treasury has a view on the deal by the liberating housing policy with hud as a different view. for a great story is reporting that difference and what happens is that it is not never reported as just the , it is reported as a dispute between treasury and [indiscernible] and the inevitable dispute, the is not healthy for the policy-making process. to be do not get them label in the press as the loser it is not good for having

internal policy debate. trust, and ie is have had so many -- so much experience with terrific reporters. never turned down an interview. never kept a reporter from talking to an official. that is about -- aside from having reporters in the room while we debate policy, that is pretty open. a great relationship with reporters, it can be done well. the rules are there for a reason. rules, one is a reason.

is a difference with talent. with his decades of experience he talked to the deputy assistant secretary of the treasury who has never in his life spoken to a reporter before. there is a symmetry and talent. one is the craft, the other one is not. , the noteof sourcing on how to talk to reporters, on what the traditions are in talking to reporters. -- they do not know what was said yesterday, sometimes even by the secretary of their department. they do not know what other stuff this reporter has been

reporting on. that official can be held by speaking to a public affairs office about what the story as. those of two great reasons. two finaljust rules are for staff, not for reporters. we can get more into why i think that makes sense. i have never taken it out on a reporter for going around me and calling. the job of the reporter as stated is to try to find

information and ask questions and develop sources. i would never blame a reporter for doing his job and i have ,any times defended a reporter making sure that my officials are doing what they need to do. for press officers, they have an obligation to know it,r subject areas, master know the areas always and develop trust relationships with toorters, prepare officials be very good communicators and be good communicators to make up for the decades that the reporter might have on them and to help reporters develop useful

sources, and i underlined that, because it is important for the reporter to have useful sources. that does not mean i will not be in the room and that it is open door of the time, but it is really important for reporters to have good, professional relationships with policy officials. there is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. i will leave it there. john? >> i would like to say that i think that the concept here is a little misleading, because really, we have the same mission and goal in mind on the public affairs size to public affairs side.

we really are working toward the same goal. the government, i will go on record to say the government needs the media to help us in this process because your readers trust you. it is difficult to understand policy. you are looking to explain things to them in ways that they can understand. your readers trust you to provide that information in an unbiased manner. have not devoted readers, watchers, whatever, listeners as the case may be, because of that you can reach sectors of the public that we may not be able to direct the target ourselves, pretty much everyone. social media, all the ways that we communicate with the public, we really do need to work well with the media to get the

information out. just like everyone said, the relationship goes both ways. you need to be able to trust the we are giving you complete and accurate information. at the same time we need to trust that your point to use that information correctly. i have been in this field for 32 years and yours was to cast that i amlief over that, saying too young. of all the reporters i have worked with i can count on one hand when a reporter has intentionally misused the information i have provided.

they are negative in tone, that as of the store was. i can count only four times. it counts in general. hopefully you have all felt that i am also trustworthy and i try to work toward that. i think a great majority of the officers do strive for that goal. we had some side conversations earlier. the landscape of journalism has changed. for started years ago, there were more specialized journalists and beat reporters. dedicated to the specifics in the matter.