the reception of her policies, we might see some of those carried out, but we have not seen them yet and there is still so much going on. especially in terms of how the country has approached this, there are legal substances. does this fall under a criminal justice area? public policy issue because despite the problems with opioids, there are many prescriptionre opioids are truly the appropriate treatment. the rest of the a treatment out there, but doctors and patients need to know how to get the balance right. >> you both spent some time with this report. what is the takeaway you have from it? i think we know these numbers. they have been hammered home for so many years. the message of stigma also.

sometimes, the public needs that sort of bully pulpit to bring this to them. >> we have seen the federal government trying to say this is a social problem, something from the grassroots that everybody needs to be aware of and needs to help others. that has been a large part of and 400 pages is very extensive for any branch of government to put out this much material. it shows a commitment and that the obama administration wants to leave a mark on this. >> thanks to both of you for being here on this thanksgiving weekend. >> here is some of our featured programs coming up this weekend on c-span. tonight at 6:30, newt gingrich, -- discuss opioid addiction and

treatment. >> people have to change their minds and have willpower. they also because of the way the , drugs work, they have to change their brains back. this is a biological thing. your brain is an organ. once these doctors hand you , for a lot of people, those pills damage that organ. >> watch on c-span and c-span.org and listen on the free c-span radio app. >> george washington is the general contractor. >> tonight on q and a, author edward larson talks about

president george washington's role in unifying the country, in ratifying the first federal document, in his new book, george washington: nationalist. talkedlton had already to washington about this democracy stuff and that it would not work. washington was a true republican and believed in a public and government. -- in a republican government. >> sunday, on book tv's in depth, we host a discussion on the december attack on pearl harbor on the eve of the 75th anniversary. of countdown to pearl harbor, the 12 days to the attack, author of japan, 1941, book,eg nelson with his pearl harbor, from infamy to greatness, followed by an interview with a pearl harbor survivor and co-author of all the gallant men, and american

sailor's firsthand account of pearl harbor. we take your phone calls and tweets come alive. go to book tv.org for the complete weekend schedule. now, suggestions for the new donald trump administration on how to handle biomedical innovation, health care and drug pricing. panelists include a health policy advisor to president obama's transition team, a former fda commissioner, and the vice president of one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies. this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> thank you all for being here, and regardless of your politics , i think it's safe to say this past week has been a little tumultuous. i think either way, no matter who would have won the election, health care issues would have been front and center. you can imagine that on earth two, where hillary clinton is

the president-elect and we are having a panel this morning on the drug pricing crackdown. instead because donald trump's , our president-elect the news , has been dominated with talk of obamacare repeal. some of the issues that are most important to this sector have been overshadowed. so for me, selfishly, this is a treat. i've had my head down and what the eta's next steps will look like but i'm curious to know what happens to the sector and we have five incredible experts who will talk about that this morning. where i think i would like to start is this. sitting in this room, we are one-mile exactly from trump tower. i looked on google maps. maybe apple maps has a slightly different calculation but one-mile, walking trump tower , has 58 floors. for the sake of argument we will say it takes about a second to go up every floor so imagine you are riding the elevator with the president-elect and

hypothetically he might not know , a lot about the inner workings of health care. [laughter] indulge me on this. imagine you can tell him anything about this industry. what is your literal elevator pitch in 60 seconds and we will start with you, kate. >> i'm going to tell mr. trump to think very carefully about policies that have an impact on the pharmaceutical industry because like ge brings good things to light, we bring good things to life and to people. innovation is crucially important to keeping our country healthy as well as to keeping our country prosperous. our companies employ tens of thousands of people in good paying, scientific, technological jobs. we do contribute to the economy. most important, our number one priority, and the thing we make

our greatest contributions to, is patients all over this country whose lives we say and -- save and in whose lives we make an important difference. his policies could change that dynamic, not only for companies individually but for every , single patient in america. >> that's inspirational. >> which floor am i on? [laughter] do i have another few seconds? >> i think they actually only have 58 floors so depending on you calculate. you may have a few more seconds. >> i am close. >> andy, how about you? andy: i would tell mr. president-elect that i know you were being barraged by recommendations for names and appointments but i would implore , you to put policy before people and persons, and what i

mean by that is that whomever you select is ultimately going to have to deal with the fact there are enormous policy issues and changes that are going to affect the federal agencies that are involved in, health care and biomedical research. we are looking at for example at , as former commissioners at the fda working on a recommendation to make the food and drug and -- administration an independent agency and all the nuance that goes with that. there are now over 10 agencies that fund biomedical research to the extent there are tens of billions of dollars and there is a significant policy question around do we need to have greater coordination of that federal spending as a boost to a policy that embraces public private partnerships and relationships with industry. and so before making critically important decisions about

personnel, i believe it's important for you and your leadership to pay very close attention to the macro policy questions that will shape the future of biomedical research and therefore the future of health care in this country. >> dora hughes from sidley austin. >> i would say ditto to both of those. very eloquent elevator speeches. i would very much hammer home the need to focus on patients. with as much progress we have made in areas, i would share examples like hepatitis and hiv. i would point out that there are thousands of rare diseases for which there are no treatments and families are suffering. i would definitely hammer home on the economic message. i think that would resonate with his campaign in terms of the number of jobs created, what that means to medical centers and other research centers and i'd certainly want to emphasize that.

the other message that i think we should talk about is the need for global partnership and some of his comments in the context of trade or nato have suggested that we might not have the same level of collaboration globally and i would want to point out that this is not an industry that can go forward alone. they are very much dependent on collaboration and very much dependent on organization is -- harmonization, another big area of focus. that would be another message i'd want to focus on. finally i would want to that we , do need to be mindful of the impact across all population groups and being mindful and particularly given some of the rhetoric of the campaign this is the area we would have to be , especially sensitive to in the

, days ahead. >> the president-elect's head is now swirling with important things. >> i think i would probably start off at the sixth floor of the massive elevator. i would say, echoing a lot of things that have already been said. in a new leader in a new position has a knee-jerk reaction. i think that if he has done his 90 day plan one of the most , important things he can do is take a step back and really listen. he has shown an uncanny ability to listen to voices that are previously been unheard around the country. in some ways that is what we , need to do. take that step back and , understand what the situation looks like the complexity of it. , the fact that companies like myself operate in 150 countries all over the world and really , understand the problems that are facing them. the problems that are facing

this country and our industry were the same before and after the election. the first thing he could do was -- is really set the tone for the principle and how he wants to resolve those issues. set a principal -- a principle of patient first and really wanting to to stimulate an economy and provide an environment that supports innovation but also one that , meets and addresses the needs of a lot of voices out there that are looking for continued options for affordable health care. he also can set a great tone by reaching out to all of us in the room to say the way of getting there is not to just burrow with small people in a room but to really reach out and listen to the ideas that each one of the people here, each one of us in the sector may have.

>> so, before i start i should tell you that margaret anderson gave me these thoughts last night, and so when she said it will knock your socks off i just don't quite get it. ask her about the significance of it. >> i'm happy to have a conversation. >> i am color coordinating with you. >> absolutely. >> this is what the people came to hear. [laughter] >> the elevator hasn't started yet. we have a president who probably doesn't understand the nuances of health care so i would say to him give him a little bit of , history and remind him that in 1945, -- wrote at the request of roosevelt about how the federal government should relate to science having just come out of , the war effort and had a very developed and robust

relationship with the scientific community. what is going to come next, do we just stop now that we don't have a war anymore and the answer surprised roosevelt and many others. what he said was support basic research. the federal government must support basic research because the private sector essentially can't. basic research operates on a different timescale and it asks the open-ended questions that can't be answered so the first , answer is that. the second is enunciate, use your bully pulpit to enunciate the importance of fundamental discovery. we heard gerberding issuing a call to remind us all of the importance of that. the second message would be the bully pulpit is expanded because of the way scientific research has gone and the connection to patients in the health and health care and that is we know -- we now need to fill the continuum from that fundamental

discovery all the way beyond the clinicians and social behavioral and population scientists into the community. the community of patients of course, but also that of healthy people because by operating together we will be able to gather the kind of information needed in this new world of big data that will establish the connections that will let us see through to the mechanisms of disease. >> i have heard a lot of threats -- threads that i want to pull this together but maybe we should just have a base question now that we have informed the next president where we all stand. republicans will hold onto congress and now will control the white house too. was this election ultimately good for the sector and andy as , former fda commissioner from a different angles, we will start with you. was this election good for the sector? >> i believe it has the

potential to be incredibly positive and exciting for the sector. i will justify that in a couple of different ways. first of all, i think with this new administration and with a view towards tax policy and regulatory policy, i believe it gives an opportunity for a really enriched climate for the sector. on one hand, addressing issues about repatriation and trillions of dollars that are available in being brought back to this country. there are hundreds of billions of dollars on the balance sheets of major corporations in this country like google and basically that money is basically sitting on the sidelines. with the right tax policies and the right investment policies, we have the opportunity to pull that back into an opportunity for enriched investment. we can can talk about

infrastructure but infrastructure for the biomedical community including , infrastructure around education and the next generation, those those can be themes that this administration, both white house and congress could put in place. then you have regulatory issues and we can talk about reforms and the regulatory process at the food and drug administration. which again could create a much more exciting climate for early-stage investment by venture capital and etc. because the pipeline is a bit more well -- a bit more predictable, and more precise and a little bit more optimistic. so i believe from those two standpoints when you couple that with the continued explosion that's going to occur in science and technology itself, the next four years could be the best of times, not the worst of times. >> we have heard it all before.

-- you heard it here optimism , first, for the sector. repatriation investment. do you agree with andy's assessment? >> i agree with it and i think the financial market agrees with that as well. the market went up within hours of the election. it dropped and went right back first, up. a number of analysts in particular pointed out that this is a time to invest in the biopharmaceutical industry. i think they made that recommendation based on what andy was talking about, but i also think they made that based on another issue, and that is the issue of the assault on drug pricing that has been taking place and was one of the cornerstones of secretary clinton's campaign. that assault on drug pricing could have had a continuing downside impact on the industry. i think the expectation now that

secretary clinton is not in the white house is that at least to some extent, some of the pressure that place of all of this emphasis on the price of drugs instead of talking about the value of drugs is going to settle down a bit and it will give our industry an opportunity to tell our story more directly and without a high level of acrimonious debate. our story is about patients and value, and it is about the fact that our health care system is a multi-partitioned operation. so it isn't just about the price of one product.

it is about whether patients have access to quality health care, including prescription drugs that they need. i think that conversation of how all of the parts of the health care system can work together to assure access to drugs as well as to the other services in the system can take place more effectively in a non-shrinking environment, and i think that is what we can expect to have in this particular case. >> let's put the patient issue on a spinning plate, and come back to it in a moment. something that you said, the idea that secretary clinton was very anti-drug prices and aggressive on bringing them down. to your point, donald trump has heard these voices and kind of capitalized on the populist message. he is not a stranger.

he's also campaigning on the high drug price issue as well. while republicans have been more tepid than the democrats, we don't really know what donald trump can do. >> i do think that we have to acknowledge that there are a lot of consumers that when they go to the pharmacy counter they have high copayments with their insurance that are not , affordable for them. that didn't change after the election. so i think for us at the company we look at that, and we know we have have to take our own actions and our own responsibility. in the last two years, classified your medicines to be at or below this price. i think that is the step that we as an industry have to continue to build upon. it's not just about innovation, it's about us working as a

responsible industry within the ecosystem, acknowledging the role we play in saving lives and addressing illnesses, but also what we can do in health care to make that system more sustainable. >> let's flip this around for second in the world where secretary clinton had been elected and there is more emphasis on drug pricing, our patients better or worse? -- are patients better or worse? that's a terrible way to ask that question. let me ask more directly. did donald trump's election last tuesday help or hurt american patients ultimately? any thoughts? >> i think we can take a step back. i think it is very helpful to have this dialogue at this point in time. with -- was this campaign good or bad for the sector at some , point you have to start at the top and look back at

president-elect trump's record and in terms of his campaign proposals they had not been particularly well detailed and there was not a meaningful focus on biomedical and biotech issues. that's one. if we look at some of the statements on science and if we look at climate change or -- climate change as an excellent example he is quite , dismissive of the science. that's true for some of his supporters. >> he doesn't believe in climate change. >> i think from a scientific level we have passed that debate. that is another flag, and i the globalization issues, the stock market went up , but foreign markets crashed, and there is a lot of concern globally and i also think some , of the focus on replacing the aca, it is heartening that he is

taking half a step back on that, but i feel like in terms of fundraising and venture capital funding, it is a fragile state particular for some smaller , companies i work with any of , these major changes aca and other areas is hugely disruptive. it adds tremendous uncertainty and i worry about some of the proposals in that context and what that will mean for financing and keeping the industry going in a robust way. the jury is out for me. i won't say it will be terrible and the world is coming to an end by any means. it will be important to see what comes forward through this transition team, in terms of who his top political appointees will be, what proposals will come out and we also need to watch what happens in congress. that is a long way of saying i don't know what this will mean for patients. i do think i have a number of

concerns that i'm not willing to say at this point it will be positive. >> let's get to the transition stuff in a moment. that is a big box to unpack. sticking with your point now about the uncertainty, and whether that is good or bad and you are feeling that maybe it could be potentially bad. any reaction to what was just -- what dora just said? andy i think it's actually good : that the president-elect has not taken a hard position on some of these issues. he doesn't have anything to actually pull back from. we can shape the future and let me be specific about that. i don't think anyone on either side would not want to see us address the critical problem of the price of drugs. i think it's a matter of what you would do about that. price controls and demonizing the industry, in my opinion, would not be a very positive thing, and it would ultimately negatively impact patients.

but there are other possible solutions and ways of doing this. i think if you look at the people who are advising president-elect trump and i would take specifically newt gingerich, he has spoken about this in a variety of ways and , about what we can do in an innovative way including with alzheimer's creating an opportunity for bonds that would be able to fund an offset costs. i think this administration could be open to innovative ideas. an economist at m.i.t., a fellow with me at the milken institute has worked on a concept, which essentially is mortgage for medicine. i think going forward we don't , have to view the solution to the problem of price of drugs by simply looking at price controls but rather look at innovative , other ways to eliminate the

burden on the patient and reconfigure our system. i'm optimistic that we have an open space here that we as a community ought to contribute to and help this administration to find those new solutions. >> one more perspective. you are out there working with clinical trials and seeing some of the research being done. what is your perspective on what has happened in the past week? >> there are causes for concern based on what we have heard in the campaign about evidence-based decision-making and what the particular foci should be. i think this is not a time for trenching in on those concerns as opposed to really finding the right people to sit down and talk with and coming out of transition. newt gingrich is a great example. beginning to educate the administration about the potential opportunities for the

administration to do things that will be recognized by the american populace as really contributing, recognizing and contributing to things that will have an effect on their health and health care. an example would be drug pricing and looked at it from a different perspective. that is that the way that pharma makes money is by selling the drugs that the fda approves and selling those drugs to make money means that they have to cover the cost of things that did not work. understanding the mechanisms of disease and that leads to smaller trials and more success of those trials and therefore less obligation to cover costs. that approach of being able to say let's get back to the

basics, and figure out the mechanisms of the disease for ways that will drive down the costs for drug companies so that they can survive will have an impact on health care and drug costs. drug costs are the major drivers of health care and the cost curve in this country. everyone agrees it's not sustainable so here's a way to approach it directly. i think that's the kind of message i would try to establish. >> one of the most encouraging parts about this election is that president-elect trump is a businessman, and most people running a large business the way he has want a lot of information before they make decisions. they do a tremendous amount of diligence. i reflect on andy's comment. the fact that he did not take an ideological position may be a positive thing. it may signal that he's open to

all ideas and if he sets up a way of working with the industry with patients, with academics and the financial services industries, all the people in the ecosystem i think we will , undoubtedly come up with better solutions. i don't think that we have heard that he doesn't care about affordable care or isn't in principle a goal that you -- to continue to have 20 million people with insurance. the way of getting there is where there needs to be a lot more work in the details. >> as a businessman,, has a lot of experience in different businesses. i'm not sure about trump drugs. if i can paraphrase what i'm hearing on this question the , sector overall has likely benefited from the election. patients, still not sure. yet to be determined. before we get to policies that can be rolled out, i think the

operative question right now is what happens next in the transition? who is going to be put into place and what does the new administration need to do? we have some folks on stage who have experienced seeing a transition through and we can start with you. again this is not hypothetical. the donald trump transition team might need based on what my sources have told me they could use a little bit of advice on how to figure out the transition steps, next. what comes now before the president-elect and his team especially around help care? >> we have already seen a lot of analysis. the transition team is rapidly being assembled. >> i'm sorry i'm a terrible moderator. you have the experience because you went through this years ago. >> i was on president obama's transition team so i had , experience at every level. the first is having the transition team in place. they will have two main tasks.

the first is to identify potential candidates for the highest level political appointee positions. the cabinet secretaries are the prime example. that is an intense job, balancing those with the right kinds of experience that we have documented a in terms of managing large organizations and having policy credibility, being able to work with others to be part of a team. it is a very difficult process. even on a parallel track as they are working through that, there is an intense interest in starting to formulate policies. president trump will not want to start the first day in office starting to think through, what are my pre-or 40's right now, -- what are my priorities right now

he wants to be ready to hit the , ground and pass some of them right away. a prime example is president obama during his transition team that's when we drafted the , american recovery and reinvestment act. that was ready to be passed by the congress and signed by the president in the earliest days of his administration. another example was the authorization of the children's health program -- children's health program. that is a critical function of the transition team working closely with the congress to think about in the first 100 days, what are we going to be able to say that we have accomplished for the american people? i think for everyone in his room, when i was on the transition team we met with a lot of groups from all different parts of the sector who came in with their ideas and suggestions for who could fill the role of director to make sure that their , priorities were on our plate. i think this is the time now to

start to seek these types of meetings and appointments and beginning to navigate the people. i think this is an opportune time to start that conversation. >> when you say you met with lots of groups, are we talking about 20 groups? >> more like 50 or 60. that's the core transition team. there are a number of other volunteer advisors who helped to meet with even more. i think that is particularly true because of the change in administration and the change of the political parties. each side will want to make sure that whatever else needs to be added or retooled, they still want to hear about that. >> this is a selfish question, how do you decide who is worth meeting with? only national associations or

industry lobbies? this is helpful for my reporting. >> i think a number of these groups are groups that you would expect. major patient advocacy group, the major physician groups, the major trade associations. i don't know that they would be surprised in terms of who we met with. i will stop there. >> one of the things that is absolutely typical about a transition is the instability and anxiety. it is instability about policy and anxiety and also about personnel. i actually am going to insert a commercial here because i think at this particular moment as far as our community is concerned, one of the most important things i think that could occur right now, immediately is the passage of the 21st century insurance

-- insurers run -- ensures legislation, because that would set the stage. that would eliminate a lot of instability and uncertainty that has been swirling around, both with regards to funding and policy. it would decompress some of the anxiety that is in our sector at this moment. it would give the next administration a little more time to be able to address a little more far-reaching policy issues and then make the decision as to what kind of leadership they would need for that. i think one of the most important things this transition could do would be to encourage congress to get that bill passed. >> i want to spend some time on this legislation. hugely important. it may even be moving as we are sitting up here. because of your experience, i'm curious as a former fda commissioner, because we are talking about the transition,

what is the skill, the talent or perspective the next fda commissioner needs to navigate where the industry is headed? >> i strongly believe, my personal belief, that the skill sets they should be looking for are around leadership and organizational management, not technical skills, professional skills. it is not important that the head of the agencies be notable scientists or famous clinicians. that would be nice to have, but most critically important is can they provide the leadership? the most important element is teambuilding. this game has changed from golf and it is now basketball. it is integrated into optimal performance. if we don't have leadership, someone who knows how to coach, teach, and manage, we have a serious problem. you have to look deep into the organizations.

this next administration will be hallmarked by reform. they want a different way of doing business, whether it is fda, nih, or elsewhere, and the next leadership will have to be adept at that. >> let's talk about the 21st century cures. i assume most people in this room know what it is. question over whether it will be resolved in the lame-duck congress, or be pushed off yet again. i know this won't play well on c-span, but i am curious in the room, show of hands, who thinks 21st century cures will get through congress this year? a show of hands? very few people, which means you are either pessimistic or readers of political pulse this morning. [laughter] as we joked earlier, journalists know nothing.

that is the lesson from 2016. some folks on this stage know quite a bit. you were on the hill last week lobbying around 21st century cures. when this panel is up you are going to d.c. to talk more. what are you hearing in your conversation with lawmakers? >> last week was a long time ago. [laughter] >> says the professor. >> i say that i was fairly optimistic. we talked with people from both parties on both the house and senate side. nobody is against more research, nobody is against cancer research and the moonshot. they will not give frank opposition to the topic. this congress would like to have some kind of wind at its back in

terms of saying it's accomplished something. there are couple of confluence s that can work in the right direction. i heard a fair amount of optimism about getting something through the house before thanksgiving, and then moving on to the senate and trying to finish in the lame-duck in getting this through. we will see if it really happens. there is still a huge amount of ground to cover in terms of really reaching an agreement about mandatory versus appropriated. >> over the funding. >> there are issues on where the pay for is going to come from. that has changed a lot since it was first drafted, so those big hills to climb are still there. i encountered a fair amount of will to get it done. >> eagerness on the hill. what about your read? you have seen legislation moved

through d.c. >> i would agree. i think biomedical research is something -- i don't think it is a matter of whether or not you will have opponents to this, but it is a matter of time and timing. whether there are bigger agendas at play, where things are needed for other things, whether you want to end the year at the spending bill or start the year as a tax cut all of these , things, i think the congress is busier that it anticipated being going into the next administration. part of it might just be bandwidth issues. >> i have heard in the last week there is less appetite now than there might have been if hillary clinton had won the white house. now everything is around the aca. i know you have an informed perspective on where you want to

see this legislation go. what do you think that legislation would do for this community that is not currently being done? >> i think that the most important pieces of that legislation are the additional funding for the cancer moonshot and additional funding for nih that are different from things that are going on right now, having said that, i think i'm the perspective -- from the perspective of the development of pharmaceutical products, there are many components of that legislation which one could argue are going on now, but it is really important that congress, even if sending a hortatory message, says that some of these things need to be focused on. we need to have, for example,

and i know this is one of andy's favorite things, he did such great work on it we need to have , a way of qualifying biomarkers. everybody doesn't even know what a biomarker is, but it became this issue that suddenly america was all about biomarkers, and whether you could argue that within the legislative language of that bill the world is going , to change, or whether you could argue that congress is sending a signal to fda, pay attention to this, it is important, i think that both of those are equal. i think that there are important messages in that bill as well as important changes in that bill that could advance the development of biopharmaceutical products and could get them developed more efficiently so

patients can get them sooner. i want to go back to something that keith said about clinical clinical trials being too big and too long and so forth. one of the things we have focused on in negotiating the prescription drug user fee act is also focused on in 21st century cures which is that we have slimmed down the fda review process. they are practically reviewing drugs between six and eight months across the board. that is pretty good. but where we have not slimmed , down is the amount of time it takes to develop drugs. we have to be innovative in how we design clinical trials. we have to be innovative in how we look at the data from clinical trials. we have to be innovative in our thinking about the use, as margaret mentioned, of the

multiple sources of data that exists. how can we take advantage of real-world evidence? how can we take advantage of it when we are doing clinical trials? when we are looking at drug safety as well as the effectiveness of second indications? all of these things are crucially important to get drugs developed faster. we cannot slimmed down the fda review process much more, but we sure can slim down drug development. 21st century cures says let's all put our heads together and figure out how to slim down drug development. so we can get these safe and effective products to the market more quickly, less expensively, and everybody is going to win in that kind of battle.

>> you're nodding along. do you agree with what you just heard and the impetus to speed drug development? -- to speedy drug development? >> i think that is certainly a priority. i also hopeful that the 21st am century cures will make it through. as of friday, that was still very much the intention of the congress. on the republican side and the democrat side. we will know more even as we finish the panel, if that continues to be the path forward. in addition to all of those things for the current and anistration, additional level of importance because some of the programs , that this administration started would be formally authorized and supported.

i think given the promise of some of the initiatives like the cancer moonshot initiative, we want to continue forward and not for there to be any retrenching in the new administration. i think it would also help for the reasons that we discussed, and in terms of president obama finishing his legacy. there might be the reason that is already not going through, but for the importance of patience, -- >> when one looks back to the what the process was, there were two issues. there were policy issues that had to be addressed and then there were political issues that were in play as well. i think right now, if the bill does not get passed because of political issues like who gets credit for what, there is going to be retribution for that

, because this bill has taken over two and a half years to pull together. >> just think of how young we were, when it started. [laughter] >> i was not that young. >> it gathered bipartisan support. it brought in an amazing cross-section of the community. it has been galvanizing and bringing groups together. if this does not pass before the next congress comes in, that all goes away. we start all over again. the bill cannot carry over. we have to start again. when that happens, there will be so many other things on the table that it is going to be almost impossible to focus on this. anyone who opposes this politically because i think the policy issues have been taken

off the table, i think the community is going to hold them accountable for that. >> i agree with you, andy. but i do think there is a lot of , anger on capitol hill right now. particularly among democrats who supported, resoundingly supported 21st century cures when it passed the house and democrats who have come together on the senate side. there's a lot of anger, and the question i have in my mind is whether that anger about the election results, not just the presidential but across the board in the country, will break apart that alliance that happened over the course of those two years and you will see this political blowback. i don't disagree with you, andy,

that there will be consequences. i don't want to say that there will be consequences. but there will be consequences and anger among the public if that drives away what they see as being a positive thing that congress has been able to pull together over the last couple of years. >> i think all of the issues addressed, and some of them are top priorities for democrats, so i don't expect democratic opposition to be an issue. i think if hillary clinton had won the white house, perhaps there would have been. in that case democrats probably would have pushed harder for even more things to be added to the 21st century cures, but to

your points given that it will have to be reintroduced and you're likely to get even less with a diminished margin in congress, i would expect the democrats to support it, but we will see. clearly my predictions have been wrong. [laughter] >> you are not the only one. the election has been the black hole sucking in our attention. what are we at risk of missing because a lot of other things have happened, like the california drug price relief act that was defeated. we talked a little bit about the cancer moonshot. what are we most at risk of not paying enough attention to? we could just go right down the line. i think that the administration may not recognize the power it

has to bring federal agencies together around an imperative. if you look at the way the moonshot has developed so everyone knows that the charge of this was to make 10 years of progress for cancer research in five years. their goal was to identify elements in the ways that we work that are serving as barriers to more rapid progress. one of those things that the moonshot task force did was to pull together 20 federal agencies that were perceived as being able to contribute to making cancer research move faster. that task force was charged with sitting down together and figuring out things they could could -- could do cooperatively

that they are not doing, now, that will make the effort move more quickly. if we expand that notion to saying to the administration, you have a chance to be able to do something in the federal government that is very hard, and that is to get agencies that fight for their budgets every year, to go to the hell to get their money and they convince congress that what they are doing, if it stops, we will just be dead. the way they do that is to isolate themselves from every other agency so they can say, we are doing something unique. there is a strong horse that keeps agencies siloed and separate from each other. if the administration can do things that forces them -- that forces holes in those silos and pushes agencies together. the current oh sep -- oct has done a wonderful job of that. >> nice shout out. >> developing some things that

really motivated agencies to work together. it is not just stick, but there are carrots as well. we are at risk of missing that. it is a really important part of allowing enterprises to move forward. >> so interagency collaboration. usually important, especially as a new team is coming together, and maybe more a team of rivals than a team of collaborators is what we have now. >> i think dora really touched on a theme that was really important, that this election was defined by the slogan make america great. there is a very tempting drive to want to focus on just focusing on our problems as a country. what i would not want this administration to miss is that health care is global. our industry is global. there is the need for us to participate in campaigns and initiatives that address global health care concerns.

just as an example, my company as well as many others are interested in what could be an ecosystem that stimulates new innovation. we have not had a new antibiotic in a new class approved in over 30 years. we're starting to see in the u.s. that the expectation is 2 million people will get an infection that the current antibiotics will not be able to treat and 20,000 people will die. we buy ourselves as a country cannot solve every problem. i'm hoping the administration recognizes that there these days -- big public health concerns and will continue to reach across to global partners to identify ways of really addressing these issues. >> one thing we do know about this administration is there is a lot of focus on trade and isolationism to some extent. have you hedged against that? have you already started

planning for what happens if there is more isolationism? >> our company is headquartered in the u.k. you are seeing from both sides of the atlantic some more some -- some similar sentiment. i think it is four days, for one thing. cooler heads will prevail. back to the issue of first principles. these problems that exist today existed before the election. i think i we get there in a very -- i think how we get there, and a fresh set of eyes and how you incentivize the marketplace, how can we get better regulatory alignment that speeds antibiotics to market will be appealing to the next administration. >> what are we at risk of missing in this transition? >> i think it goes back to -- i think she quoted something i

said previously. [laughter] >> you will need to move to the right? [laughter] >> just this spirit of collaboration our nation needs right now. >> here is latecomer to pick up on what you said before you want , to have something that points to ready to go on the first day in office. the first 100 days. what i am a little troubled about is that the congress is moving very rapidly, saying this is what we're going to push on. here is the rhine plan. dust it off. pass a budget resolution. it is going at 60 miles an hour less than a week after the election. my fear is that given that he did not have established policies, that there is some opportunity there potentially,

that we are not taking the time to actually go through the process of letting some of it play out. part of that, two years of developing 21st century cures, all of the collaboration and partnership that are in place, what do these groups want? -- what does the industry really need? i would love for some of this to slow down just a little bit on some of these bigger issues and think about, what are the people who supported this president, what are their priorities and how are we addressing them? are we going to be sure that we are taking the right steps that go -- that we are taking the right steps? that would be some of my concern at this point in time. >> andy. >> there are all of these themes hunting -- floating around. i think the most critically important issue that keeps me up at night and what i am worried about with regard to the transition in the administration

if the need for us to focus on education. anything we hope for a want to see accomplished in health care anything we are looking forward , to with regard to innovation and creativity is all based on the next generation. it is all based on those people who are going to take our place over these next few years. and we have got to focus on that right now in terms of our education system to nurture and inds.op those young m without that, eight years from now and further on, we are not going to be the kind of country we want. we will not be generating the kind of innovation and creativity that we're used to. so, what i don't want to see is -- what i don't want to see midst of this conversation is the critical importance of those young minds that we need to identify and nurture and develop and promote so that they can

change the world. >> if it is harder for immigration to happen and for minds detained around the world, do you want to see that to happen? essie points out, there are only three ways you can reduce human capital -- grow it by birth rates, import it by immigration, or nurture it by education and health care. and we should make that a central theme of this transaction. how are we going to develop the human capital of this nation and the 21st century? >> down at the end. thatworry about focusing

the new administration comes in and focuses on only those things that are wrong. and they make an assumption that most everything that happened before they got there was wrong. and has to be changed and has to be fixed. so, they need to focus equally of the things that are working well. they are eager to make a difference in making a change. but sometimes, you can make a difference by enhancing the things that are working well. and i selfishly think about the fda because it is an agency that is very important to our industry, the people we represent at bios. there are many things at the fda that are working well. not everything is bad at fda. is thethe things that

worst thing for companies who are regulated by fda is to be uncertain about what is going to happen. so, if they think, and if the markets think that suddenly everything is going to change, or random things are going to change unpredictably just for the sake of change, that is not a good thing. it is not a good thing for companies, and is not a good thing for the people waiting for innovative products to come out. so i hope that in thinking about what to do next and what to do first, that there is not an assumption that everything that exists now has to be changed, or fixed. and that there is a careful analysis of the things that really are not working very well, as well as a things that are working ok. >> so, we are not taking

audience questions because this is on c-span, so i will try to act on behalf of of the audience and ask her questions in the last 15 minutes. kay, andtart with you, you talk about looking forward. i am wondering what you think -- about the obama administration. how good was the administration? hard one.is a bad not think that it was for the sector if looked at over the eight year period, in the sense of global policies in general policies. i think there were things that were said, issues that were , that from time to time

had an impact on the pharmaceutical sector because this is a sector that is very insolent by the occasional remark. or the occasional tweet. for example, a tweet by then-candidate clinton about drug prices caused, literally, the bottom to fall out of the biopharmaceutical market. every body's stock went into the tank. investors backed away. buts momentary innocence, it is not a good thing to have that kind of fluctuation. -- i think that there were there was a sort of overall, negative view by some people in the administration of the

biopharmaceutical industry. so, i think the industry felt as though it was constantly having to justify its existence, something that is not necessarily the best thing. but in general, i do not think that it was a bad administration. i think there were moments that were less than thrilling. >> ok. a diplomatic way putting that. andy, the fda has been caught up recently with some challenges around so wrapped up -- in some challenges around a drug been approved by political pressure and scientists within the fda not so happy about that. from your perspective as a former fda commissioner, is the agency insulated enough of political pressure? say: first of all, let me that in my experience from the time that i was there, there was

not one decision that was made on a political basis. they were all made on a science basis. the issue that you have to come a grips with is the agency is part of the federal government, part of the administration, and it is immersed policy. whether a decisions, drug, device, those are always based on science. how that thing goes forward and the public lounge, that gets shaped by policy. many give you a very specific example -- let me give you a very specific example. should nooksrose, from a cloned cow be allowed -- cow bemilk from a cloned allowed to be put into the

regular supply? my answer is yes because there is no difference from the milk from a cow that has been cloned then from a milk -- been from the milk from a wild herd. from a clonedk cow into our milk supply, you would not be able to track and trace it, and immediately all of our cheese exports to europe would shut off. so my point is that the agency and the commissioner has to be a policy aspect of while leading an agency that has to make decisions based on science. and where there is a conflict, and theysecretary, delegate that with the commissioner to make a decision. and the scientific community is

community scientific may say, wait a minute, that is contrary to what science said. i do not deny that. on the other hand, it is not in the best interest for the nation for a policy -- for the nation from a policy point of view. the reinforces the decision i made when you put an age limit on what we thought was at 12 orte for someone 14 years of age going into a 7-eleven to purchase a drug. >> i understand all the things you have to balance in that role and complicated policy. to st want to come back sarepta. they give you new concerns about how the fda makes its decisions? precedent that can

be dangerous? >> to be perfectly candid and honest, i was not versed in that decision. i don't know if i know enough about what the internal discussions and conversations were to comment on that. dodging your question, but i do believe that there is a space where leadership looks at issues, judges the science, and then determines what is in the best interest. >> ok. there are a number of obama administration initiatives. precisionoward more and health. do we know if any of those are really paying off? i realize it is early in the but there are a lot of dollars flowing into the initiatives, can we say for sure that we are seeing the roy we need? yourself, it is

very early to tell up there is an impact. nothing that is encouraging to me is that both moonshot as well to precision medicine initiative recognize that our ecosystem for how to address these problems has to include everyone. set by howhat is those initiatives are constructed, what they are intended to do is really excited. i want to build on something kay said where the industry has been in the last six months, which has not been very kind to the industry and does not recognize this industry and the value to society. there are certain ways --there -- there are certain ways were the industry did not want the government to be involved. acknowledgment.

juxtaposes moonshot is in revelation -- is an evolution. i do think that it is too early to tell. i love the tone that was set by the administration on how they work together as an ecosystem and i hope that continues into the future. >> so, i would argue that those initiatives are working. rolells into question the of administration in this case investigating the challenges like this. i think a well investigated challenge serves actually quickly and demonstrate its success because it brings into andendeavor individuals

discipline that did not think of themselves that being able to contribute. we really need to involve engineers and physicists and computer scientists if we are going to move health care forward and executive ways. of course, that was true with the first moonshot. sequencing with the of the human geno. both of those cases were not achievable. right? we were having a hard time getting a rocket into the sky, forget about taking a van to the moon and back. resequencing dna of my favorite gel plate. on a good day, you could get 40, 50 bases. what happened was, people from other disciplines said, you know, i could do something here. material scientists and

capillary scientists and engineers and so forth said, we could make some progress here. braind argue that the initiatives have already done that. in that sense, it is successful. administration. measures thatare say that a well enunciated challenge that an administration can bring forward and make contributions. >> so when you announce your building a rocket, another people can come along for the ride. i just came up with that. [laughter] let end with one question -- who is the one person that you are going to be watching in 2017 with impact on this industry? could be bernie sanders.

could be someone outside of legislation. i hope you won't say donald trump, because that is an easy answer. but the one person, the most interesting person and pharma and biotech. martin's crilly -- i think everyone is picking up their answers. let's start with kay. >> why don't we start with you. >> me? i don't have to answer the question, i just ask them. i think the person could have a fair amount of sway on the ground floor. paul ryan, could you be the guy on the ground doing all of the health reforms?

that is my answer, but i should not have had to give one since i am a moderator. [laughter] >> i will keep my eye on in my year to the ground for newt gingrich. -- he is a advisor to mr. trump and mr. trump listens to him. and over his congressional career, and even in his private consulting business, he has remained extremely interested in the regulation of that the fda does. >> newt gingrich. got it. priebus. tie between the fda commissioner and -- you want on the stage to nominate?

>> i will tell you afterward. [laughter] >> i would say the new secretary. that might be pairing any predictions on that check on >> no predictions. >> those are all good. i will want barack obama. interesthown enormous -- he has shown enormous interest and capacity to capture the current challenges that we -- in researche realizing the imperatives for connecting technology. we'll see what happens. >> yet talked about doing venture capital in this space before maybe a wrinkle and his post-presidency plans. thank you so much. take you, audience. -- thank you, audience. >> thank you, moderator. [applause]

monday night on the communicators -- >> i hope some copy rewrite will come with a requirement or some kind of framework for putting data into a central repository where people can have access to it. can be searched not on an individual item by item basis, but a scale basis because we run 2.5 million songs through. faces -- pandora talking about digital music services, ticket price inflation, and competition between humans and bots. bots buy tickets. fans out ofp other the market.

some fans really want to see a concert and they can match the buttons on their computer all day long, but you can't beat a bot. and they are not able to get tickets at their first run, so they are left with only the opportunity of buying the tickets on the secondary market after the bots havarti got them. >> watch the communicators on c-span2. now discussion on the future of law enforcement in america. in the chicago ideas conference in mid-october, this is about an hour and 10 minutes. [applause] good afternoon. before we start, i know that gabriel have you welcome each other, and if you want to give a shout out to the chicago cubs while you are here, you can do that as well.

welcome, good afternoon, and welcome to what we expect will be a very lively conversation about the police or's of the future. you know the names of the city's ferguson, baltimore, baton rouge, chicago, dallas, suburban st. paul, the list could go on, tulsa, those are just a few cities in recent years that have pushed the issue of policing, the often does the interaction between police and those they serve, and the safety of both policing communities front and center. there is no question that the current state of policing is an emotional and controversial subject that we are wrestling with all of the country. considered just some of the small phrases that get really big reactions -- law and order, stop and frisk, black lives

matter, blue lives matter, so that is the backdrop of a conversation we are about to have this afternoon. now, most police officers do the job that the ask them to do, to protect and serve our communities, and they do it quite well. but no matter what your perspective, there is a building consensus that there needs to be changed. that the police force of the future must be different. what we asked police officers to do beyond and forcing law, how police are trained, how accountability is find, what policing message -- policing methods the user up for debate today. moreis year, reportedly than 700 people have been killed by police officers in the united states. a disproportionate number of them, people of color. and we are here today to discuss why those exceptions are so numerous and to propose solutions.

and we have just a little over an hour to do it, so, we are going to get started. ofhave assembled a group experts with very diverse opinions and backgrounds to talk us through the issue. i would like to introduce them and bring them to the stage. first up, craig, professor of --, university of law school university of chicago. craig? [applause] >> sit right here. second one. right there, yet. and we welcome next, eugene o'donnell, former new york city police officer now professor of a lot of police studies at john jay college in new york. welcome. [applause]

thank you. over. us, dr. cedric alexander, public safety director of dekalb county, georgia. he's a clinical psychologist. she is also a member of president obama's task force on 20th century -- pre-first century policing. finally, mark lamont hill, a journalist and a professor at morehouse university and author of a book. [applause] gentlemen. thank you.

i expect you will hold nothing back. i am going to start off with some news that was made yesterday. there is an organization of police cheese, the international group of association of chiefs of police were meeting, and when you talk about racism inside policing, it is a very delicate as many policely officers come to resent systemic racism by groups like black lives matter. they could've surprised if you -- it probably surprised police chief's when terri cunningham apologized for historical racism by law enforcement. she cited the role of police

enforcing racist laws like jim crow calling it a source of today's mistrust between minorities and police officers. gentlemen, i would like you ought to address that. if you think this is a step police department should be taking. i know some folks at that meeting thought it was a step that went too far. mark, i will start with you. [laughter] great question, and first of all, thank you all for inviting me. this is a question i wrestled with when writing my book. i was looking at these issues with state violence looking at the historical underpinnings. one of the things i come back to is this idea that we can't think about racism in the context of policing, but truly at the level of intention. if we continue to look for the rabid, foaming at the mouth police officers, we both find that, like william scott getting shot in the back. but far more consistent is the

number of people who are by design by a system and by structure, leads to the over policing of some communities at the expense of others. look at the psyches of officers and citizens at how they look at race. you talk about this idea that black children are seen as older and more guilty than a white counterparts. that leaves to a tamir rice being 12 and being read his 20. that does not mean the police officer said, i'm going to kill a 12-year-old today. does an apology help? absolutely. edit knowledges there is a structural issue even though you are the good officer. apple been using the bad of the bunch model for police officers.

i think that might be the wrong way to think about it because it puts it at the level of individualism. the barrel might be poisonous. there may be something that renders all the apples poisonous. let's look at this in a different way. >> how do you think about it, dr. alexander? dr. alexander: it is great vicki apologized, and certainly, for heeone -- it is great that apologized, and certainly for someone who is a part of the largest organization in the welcome think it was a apology, however, i do not think it is the -- i don't think it will change very much, to be perfectly honest with you. it is great to have the apology, but what is really going to be to --nd if we are going

if policing is going to apologize for its past these, it has to come locally. i think local police officials in our own respective communities need to have the courage to do what we saw the president of our acp do the other day. that is the real test, and that is where the real apology in that community, where historically, we all know, policing has been utilized over the years, particularly going back into slavery, john crow -- jim crow, civil rights, utilized by government to keep people oppressed, suppressed. what will be really important is for us as law enforcement officials to go back to our own communities and make these apologies for the things we could have done better over the years, and then promise to do something a lot different and

great is a move forward. icp said thews by police profession was irreparably damaged, and that is actually correct. nobody wants a job at this point. nobody feels they can do the job. commissioner said you should have a four year degree. members of the department have that. chicago can't even answer 30 credits. answer the filing fee tried to get police officers. these are real issues. we need to get the substance of how to get forward. 10 people were shot yesterday. one was 13. boy whose15-year-old body was found burning. and communities have been silenced and cops event totally silenced. nobody talked to them. everybody is an expert.

they would not do it for five minutes. but the communities on the ground have been utterly silenced in cities like chicago, baltimore, philadelphia. hundreds of thousands of people leaving the city's in fear for the crime and asking for more police productivity where we have seen a collapse in police proactivity. we have caused irreparable .amage not only do we have a collapse of recruiting, we have an exit exoduas at then moment. -- 90% of the cop said they would not recommend the job to anyone. there was a cadre of young people who wanted to be young police people and the

institution could not survive three years and more than negative,1 billion of unprotect lies, lacking in nuance, coverage of what the police did. we need to go forward and not go back. we need to talk about a post-policing america. we are simple enough to find the people you could want in a police uniform to do the work. you may find somebody. a department of employment, but you are not going to have a department of police unless we as a society come through in a beer unified way because i do believe this is a very unifying topic. you get on the ground and talk to people. you will find there is a -- theous amount of room police force remain one of the --

they are being bashed by politicians, lawyers. it would be a good time to have a conversation on how to we reimagine public safety and the shrieking role of the police. >> a lot to take in there. silencing of voices. i would suspect you would have something to say about that? >> let me start with the apology. i think it is a step in the right direction, but i think there is a risk talking about apologizing for the past. there is a risk of saying, that was then, and this is now. then,tuff that happened

it should have never happened, being knowledge that, and it is important to the knowledge that, but i think it is even more knowledge somes other things that mark was talking about, which are present-day racism in the present-day reality that all too many black and brown folks and low income folks have had to address. stepnk, that is the first in terms of looking forward, to me the first step to move forward that it begins with the reality on the ground. we may have different ideas to what those realities may be based on where we set, but i also want to just say to everyone here, being one of these professor/lawyer for slash , and i am a folks

fan of police. those things we need to get rid of law enforcement. one of the reasons why i am hopeful and why am i for 21st century policing is because it begins with the activism of young people that is forced us to reckon with, and a knowledge the realities as a real. but i'm also hopeful because i need -- because i meet honorable crapcersc who hate this as much as i do. in chicago, we would not be having this conversation if someone from within law enforcement did not have the courage to give me a holler and letting me know about laquan mcdonald.

we would not be having this conversation today. the sad reality is that that person cannot be known. they put their life on the line, their family on the line, their career on the line by stepping forward. when i have conversations with police officers around the united states where officers have step forward, and then i -- theynext question will tamika stories about good police officers -- they will tell me about good stories about police officers, but when i ask about a happy ending for the officers with stepped forward, you get a lot of silence, and that has to change. >> i want to talk about the big thing that happened after ferguson was that the president decided that we needed to conversation about policing. any formed this task force,

which you are a member of. one of the things that was recommended was about collecting data to really find out what is happening. i wanted to know what is your kind of frank and unvarnished opinion about whether the white house's current push for this kind of data-collection and to share about the use of force and guns or weapons against suspects, it is that --isn't really going to produce good, national numbers -- is that really going to produce good, national numbers when you have a police system across the nation that is really diverse? there are 18,000. all with different ways of collecting. and this is voluntary. so, do you expect to have two

numbers about what is happening across the country? >> what is critically important is that we are having the conversation. one thing we talked about ad nauseam during the creation of those task force recommendations was to take a look at data, and how much. what we don't know we cannot measure, right? until we know the number of shootings that are taking place, the number of near misses taking place, the number of charges that are being brought against police officer's, you take all of this information as it relates to policing community interactions, traffic stop, whatever the case might be, the more information we have about a particular agency, the better description we have of who that agency is. if you try to think about it anecdotally, you cannot measure it with your eyes.

you have to have hard science, hard numbers to be able to look at it. so, to your question with 18,000 police department across the and the government is not going to mandate, at least not at this point anyway, mandate agencies to take part in is going to that require resources and money and training and so forth and so on, but a lot of departments that want to be ahead of the curve, a lot of departments that have the money in order to do this and to gather this data to use the latest technology that is out , ire as it is the developed think you are going to see a much better police department because when you can take a look at what it really is that you is at your it really officers are doing on the street, look at that information and analyze it. you are doing good, you can say you are doing good at. and the things you are not doing so good, you can it knowledge.

>> i agree. unique data. -- you need data. there were two questions embedded in your question. one is actually be collecting data on police. i don't -- i cannot think of any good reason why we should not. but then there is a second piece of that question, is does it make us hopeful for a different outcome? let me back up for a minute. abolitionist an position. a without police. i am always skeptical of any reformist gestures. before any empirical investigation, i am not down with that.

however, i do think that to the extent we are going to keep but the problem is if police are responsible for collecting the data, then we're asking police to continue to police themselves, even empirically. that makes a very skeptical. the reclassification of murder. when there are numbers games to be placed, how to classify homicide versus something else? the higher the stakes we -- the morenumbers we make people feel vulnerable, the more these numbers dictate your future and outcome, it invites a dishonesty with the numbers. what am i suggesting? some greater oversight. two things -- it should be mandatory that all police departments do that? i cannot imagine a police

department not keeping track of people the shoot, or traffic stops, or anything. the war on drugs produced a bizarre amount of militarization of police and arming a police. we found money to militarize police department. we can find money to do quantitative analysis. cheaper to do hlm. >> key is on point with a lot of things. -- he is on point with a lot of things. it andsomeone to look at someone who could understand it, and someone who could tell me what it is we need to do differently because he's right. skew itok at it and however i want to. i can interpret it a different kind of way.

when you have a group of people outside of the organization that you are working with that can collect the data, the data goes into a mainframe somewhere, and you can look at it, discuss it, and talk about the things that we can do very differently, that is very important. the whole key is the more transparent we are as a police agency, i think that begins to relieve some of this distrust that we are constantly hearing. we are going to have policing in this country, that is not going to change. at least probably not in my lifetime, but mark is much other than i am. >> not by that much. >> it would be wonderful if we lived in a place where we did not have to prisons, police, but the fact of the matter is today,

as we know, we do, so how do we operate in the system that we are in any way think is a community across this country a better view to the local police and beginning to have some influence into how their service is delivered to them by the local police? to ask you because i don't want to get too far to the weeds on this, but when we talk about 18,000 police departments, of course the big police departments would be doing this, we talk about the small departments, mr. o'donnell, i would like you to address what kind of thing are we going to be seeing with them? is it going to promote more transparency? is it going to make police more attractive? >> we are in a country where facts matter less and less every day. this police dialogue is a great example of this. the media decided three years

ago that this was going to be an force police using deadly would be an issue, and they were going to run away with that issue. i believe that unequivocally. the fact that many more white people are killed by the police, the fact that we live in a nation where there is so much gun violence, that city after city, if you took a murder map and planted the murders on the map in philly, baltimore, and in y are allthe neighbors you cannot see anymore. there are street in some cities where there are more people murdered then entire cities. , the laws payroll to the police -- the fact that the laws cable to the police in the situation that you can go on and on. in fact became another casualty

-- became an utter casualty. this has been immediate campaign that replicates the blog is fair. blogosphere. the wrong number, the police kill this many people in a year. i will talk about very quickly, the police department i know very well, the new york city police department, the most ontrained police department the planet. 5 million calls a year in approximately 50 shootings a year. almost invariably against an armed assailant. but if you went to the streets of new york and talked to people in large, they would say the police are always killing people. i know people think that the data misrepresentation is only on the right.

we have to get the politics out of it. we have to see what really works for public safety, and we have to talk about victims. that into acknowledge police department after police department, shooters are shooting and not getting caught. if the cops are going out in capturing the shooters, we would have more officer-involved shootings. this city in particular, you have a police department in name only. the cops get there when they get there. i had an african-american woman who son was murdered in the city , and she is not part of an delete. and when the police were being bashed, she said i don't turn to politicians and lawyers when i need help, i turned to the police. we have to have a real, nonpartisan, substantive, ford thinking conversation about how to secure communities. get the politics out of it.

take off people's partisan blinders and see what is out there. >> what you think about that? you investigated and looked at cases of abuse. that is amething media storm that was created? >> i cannot disagree more. i could not disagree more. now, weame way right have president of candidate saying this is all conspiracy, a media conspiracy by the "new york times." this is a media conspiracy with anyone who disagrees with us. attitude of us against them mentality is the last thing we need at this time , and i do we want believe that -- if we want to have effective police, we got to

have trust. and trust does not come unless it is earned. if we are going to have a conversation about reality, don't want data, i to see, i don't want to know, and what the fbi director says in the same breath, it is a national disgrace if you ask him any people were killed a police in america last year, we could just shrug our shoulders. so, it is more than just encouraging 18,000 law enforcement agencies to collect information, it is actually requiring it, and requiring it in a standardized way. that's why we need informed conversations, public conversations of what needs to be done, not just knee-jerk stuff. and back to data. even data matters. i spent the last four years talking with black high school students about chicago, about their everyday experiences with

police. whatwho are in school, and i am told, and now this is thousands of hours we spent with kids, would break any human being's heart. and we have to do something better. as you know, we had in some neighborhoods in chicago, less than 20% clearance rates for murders were violent. not surprisingly, those neighborhoods are the same neighborhoods where we see the greatest numbers of complaints for police. >> police are not flawed. >> how about being honest? about notst arguing wanting data or transparency. >> it won't matter. >> so the truth doesn't matter? my point is that the truth is where lady to start. this, if weto fix

care about policing, if we care about our safety, communities, this is what you said -- we need honesty. with let's look at what the data says, and let talk to people who have been most excluded in these conversations. why are police having difficulty solving cases? if the q2 i talked with, none of them trust the police -- of the kids i talked with, none of them trust the police. something is terribly wrong. we don't want the vast majority of black children distrusting police. >> why not go? maybe they should. if we begin from the premise that police are trustworthy, then sure.

we don't want to create a world of people don't trust police. but if i said, i don't trust politicians, do people say, you should, mark? these are structural questions we have to raise. to your point, because i was listening very carefully, for one, we don't want to underestimate the value of citizens raising issues. the media did not want to talk about dead, black kids. killed,yvon martin was -- >> let's be clear, that was a vigilante. that was not a police officer. let's get our faxed -- let's get our facts straight. was when am saying trayvon martin was killed, that was the first day come -- that was the first, big moment since rodney king that the media was talking about where we started talking about these issues.

that started a wave of activism where black lives matter began. by the time we get to august 9, 2014, when mike brown died, suddenly there is a movement in place. it took months for us to hold police accountable for trayvon it was police did not bring chargers. black, young, he's still heters -- kehe is black, still matters. >> this is not a lead argument. let's abolish the police. police abolition is a great argument if you live in a compound or any doorman building. and i'm not excusing police abuse, but how many people left

the city and other cities because of the collapse of public safety? >> we would have to do data collection variance [laughter] -- we would have to do data collection. [laughter] >> the cities are hollowed out. >> i'm making an entirely different argument. the first thing is it is a movement. the second is the issue of race. i don't think it is some kind of hocus-pocus by the media to raise the question of race. the question of proportionality. based on your percentage of the population -- >> what percentage and a big-city city? almost every body. almost every single victim in a single -- victor in a city like this,. >> let's make a commitment to one another.

let me make my argument. >> go ahead. to makee not been able the argument. you are disagreeing with something i have not said. i promise to be fast. the question of race needs to be raised. which neighborhoods are being policed and over policed? when we talk about stop and frisk, that is very much a race-driven argument when you look at where the policing happens. it is a race-targeted policy. the very notion of disorder which is dedicated -- which is for stop and frisk and broken windows policing is this perception of crime. empirical data shows it has been linked to poverty and race. those things absolutely matter. we are here to talk about big

ideas. this is a long-term dream. in 1819, it was impossible to imagine a world without slavery. let's have a vision of what the world to look like. on the ground policies right now that can stop some of the pain people are feeling. i am not in a gated community. i am doing violence interruption with my own body. at the same time, this cannot be the end game. >> what about the policies that keep people safe? what keeps people safe on the ground? but that's not the argument. >> hold on. wait just a second.

>> you can do both. you can release things on the ground and have concrete positives and not abstract. the review board is not abstract. >> for me ask you this. navalre part of the gazing as part of the task force of 21st century policing. >> let me talk about this from a police administrative perspective as one of the chief. i listened to my colleagues here. and they talk about things very differently. and they talk about things differently based on what their spirits as have been. but one of the hardest things to talk about his policing and who is right, wrong, who was second, who was first.

the whole introduction of policing in communities of color wrong right from inception, and there has never been any trust. wasce across this country used to suppress groups of people, and keep them in their place, and keep them on their side of the tracks. so, as we move through the decades and through the centuries, some of that got better, but it did not change and a whole lot of places. and we know that in many communities across this country, people don't trust police. because police have betrayed committees in which they have policed -- because people have betrayed communities in which they have policed.

a lot of people don't have a reason to want to tell who shot johnny down the street, even though they know who did it. they want to, but there is a fear because there has never been any trust whatsoever. and some of the horrific things police have done to innocent people, period you don't have to go back a long time ago in order to know this. so, we are in this place where that something mark was talking about, and this is where it gets complicated -- many communities that are struggling whether it is in chicago or houston, regardless of where it is, you have people there who don't feel connected to police for a variety of different reasons. some of it's based on their own

experience, and some of it is based on stories and myths that are being told, and all of those things, right? but i think one thing we are going to have to do it we want to advance policing -- we have to understand. if a predominantly african-american committee says to me, "chief alexander, i've got a lot of crime in my community. robberies, ak into, --b -- break-ins, robberies, drug sales. i've young black people shootin- each other every night, and i need police presence there." and when police get there they go down, hopefully, they are not violating people. in real tough situations, they go down and they arrest someone's friend or cousin, a niece or nephew, or son or

daughter, and the argument the next day is that there are too many police down here. you can't have it both ways. and it gets to a point, where i hear where we don't want to over police. but if i'm not there being present and being visible, than trying to keep other people from getting hurt becomes more difficult. but if i put too many police in there, and they start to interact with people in the community who were not doing what they are supposed to be doing -- that are breaking the law -- then i could get complaints. i'm not saying that officers are right all the time, but many times they are literally trying to do their job. people have certainly their perceptions about what their local police department is or is not doing. so, nobody sitting around in the circle is wrong about their experience or what their perception is. it's just that we are all seeing it very differently, because

it is so convoluted and so complex. those communities want us to be in there. they want the police and mayor. the police are not the result of a bad economy or poor education or those things that drive crime. that's not the police officers' fault. they are just the ones that have to respond to the outcome of all these social ills. and when they do, they generally end up oftentimes with some negative interaction that may take place. and sometimes officers are right, and, unfortunately, there are times when they are wrong. >> i want to talk about officer buy-in. but craig, i want to let you respond first. >> the first thing -- i'm going to come really on the heels of director alexander -- if you lie to folks, you are not going to get trust. and mark was responding to this. i think it's right.

i him saying there is a real, objective problem. police cannot the effective -- cannot be effective without trust. notsolve the problem by accountable -- fundamentally accountable to the community we serve. when i talked about working and talking with kids and for the last few years, i've spent a lot of time in the high school five blocks from where a teacher at -- where i teach at the university of chicago. among the things and they're two different constitutions that apply. there is the constitution that applies in lower income black and brown communities in chicago and elsewhere in urban areas of the united states, and the constitution i teach in my classrooms where -- hey, you don't get stopped unless you have a reason to believe that you actually committed a crime,

or you're armed and dangerous before they search you. until very recently, chicago has put new york to shame in terms of stop-and-frisk. when i speak to kids -- so these are just everyday kids who live with the ever-present possibility of being stopped and searched and treated like a criminal. every kid also knows that part of the reality is we are talking about everyday experiences. they know a family member who's been beaten or been arrested, someone who has been shot and killed by police. they know that every encounter has the potential to escalate. every kid we talked to talks about this has an everyday experience. the vast majority of kids in chicago and chicago high schools

are telling me this. i interviewed 200 kits. now this one kid -- other than my daughter, but that is a different story for a different time. the kid had never been stopped or searched either place. and i guess the biggest thing that kids taught us was that there is not going to be this trust until and unless they see police department stand behind those good officers who smile and treat them with respect but who don't stand behind the officers who abuse them. the reality in chicago, in many places across the nation, is that there has been an utter lack of police accountability when police officers abuse their power. that is what the data is showing. >> let me just say that vindicating the fourth amendment and talking about a law school class is terrific. but let's acknowledge certainly

in new york, a city that once had 22,000 murders -- that --ot suggesting >> the reality is that those workhave pared down police , by doing that, they have created issues and they have cost lives. there are children that are dead. police are not out there anymore. they are a paper tiger, and the bad guys know it. this is a serious conversation we should have in the community. in philadelphia, when michael mayor,was running for

there was more support for stopping first by african americans than anywhere else. we have to get real and get on the ground and talk to people. it's perfectly well to talk about the constitution in a law school setting and dance on the head of the constitutional law pin. the reality on the ground is lives are being lost all over the place. shooters are being caught. people have to understand that in the police business the default setting is to do nothing. i was doing research some years ago. in 1972, thecago advice to a young cop is to do nothing. >> do you agree that police are doing nothing because of the ferguson affect or -- >> i think there may be cities where that may be more of an issue than maybe in others. i can speak specifically to my community and say no, but i can look to a couple of other communities across the country

and say that could very well be the case. but here's the thing about stop and frisk. stop-and-frisk went totally unsupervised. if you don't have reasonable cause to stop someone, you can't just stop me, because we are two black guys walking down the street. you understand what i'm saying? what happened with stopping frisk -- stop-and-frisk -- yeah, crime went down significantly. a lot of bad people were taken off the street. also, people like myself and mark had their rights violated. it left us totally against the police. here is what the president of the united states says. we call him barack. >> you can call him barack. [laughter]

>> so here is what the president of the united states said, "we have to bring down crime but we can't do it by raising public resentment towards the police. we have got to find a way to do both." the only way that you do both, quite frankly, goes back to what he has been saying and what i have been saying religiously -- you have to have community engagement and trusting relationships. we can't go back and change what has happened. but going forward, we have got to figure out how do we create in our communities, that have so much distrust for the police at this very moment, who have lost so much legitimacy in communities across this country, how do we get that back? >> i'm saying that can't happen in the manner of the structural issues that produce these things. so, for example -- i agree.

if you stop-and-frisk everybody in america, you'll catch a lot more guns than if you don't bow. -- and if you don't. balance?o we strike a there are countries that do this in real life that do not have as many guns. i'm saying, how can we also imagine a context where there aren't as many guns? where there isn't so much gun violence or aren't as many robberies? investing in jobs and investing in educational programs, and early literacy, there are things that we can do to structurally get rid of that. we have to imagine those things in connection with the future of police. even if you believe in policing, which obviously i don't, but even if you believe in policing, -- there has to be a long-term and short-term goal. the radical reform comes from changing the relationship between the police and community. for example, where i'm in

philadelphia one of the things , we do is cop watch programs. we watch police, and we do neighborhood watch. we do conflict resolution with young people, and we do gun buyback programs. we do these things so that please do not have to do that. have not that we do not trust in policing, that we have a greater trust in ourselves. to me, that's also the future. one last thing, the first half of my book, which is on sale right now, we look at ferguson. there are 20,000 people. 16,000 citizens have warrants. 16,000 out of 20,000 people, that's unconscionable. that's not because police are giving everybody tickets. i'm not making them the bogeyman. what i'm saying is that if you gettingystem of ticket -- you have 16,000 with words and most of them are black people.

if you get a citation and have to go to traffic court, you would be like "white drivers are really good drivers." so, you also have to think about the structural piece of this that leads to a town like ferguson that turns police into tax collectors and turning citizens into vulnerable people. this is the problem. we have to deal with all of that. >> we are going to good audience in just a moment. but mr. mcdonnell, i want to ask you a question. we have been talking a lot about community, and how they feel about the police. what we have heard from you is that police are full of resentment, too. so, if you look at the 21st century task force and all of the recommendations that it provides and say, "this is how we need to have police and community working together." is there anything that police

buy into? thato we get them to say this is ok and things that we need to change? >> we have an abject political failure. people who have failed so badly for so many years, and i have -- chicago has been doing policing for 25 years, and have also had 22,000 murders that you have to look and say, what in policing the need to be doing that involves getting offenders? it's a conflict of adversarial job. certainly, we are not going to get young people. what mark said is right. we need to talk about the volume and the offloading responsibilities -- mental health. and we need to look at drugs. we need to look at non-custodial arrest civil enforcement. strategies that do not involve the police wrestling around on the ground with people, because of all the talk we have heard from so many people -- i have

yet to hear how police to make an arrest of a resisting person without using force. a core issue that they deal with -- they are charged with using force, and there are plenty of videos with police officers being murdered. you can see how fast it happens. you can see how unscripted it is. there are no rules. it goes from from cordial to homicidal in seconds. we need to have a serious conversation. theink all the action -- big thinking should be shrinking the police role. they have a service role, and that's most of what they do. in suburban america, that's what they do. we have to figure out a way to shrink the role of the police. really, it's a democracy issue, because the bloggers have taken over. by the way, the idea that this is a media conspiracy -- donald

trump is getting lot of votes, because people do believe that the media is dishonest on major public issues. we have to come face-to-face with that. that there is a perception that the media picks up issues, hammers them. personally, i can tell you from dealing with them, they are not only involved with the nuances in the particulars. they want the visceral, emotional, and they want the divisive. >> that is why the task force is suggesting a lot of the data collection comes forward, so we can get rid of that and see what's really happening on the ground. let me go to the audience. we have about 10 minutes here. we have a lot of folks. a person is going to come by with a microphone. you can come to the aisle. come down to the aisle. people with microphones on either side there. all right, let's start over here.

>> hello, i saw the chicago police department speak about the issue of violence in chicago. i'm curious what you think of it? what are the tactical initiatives you can do on the ground to strengthen the trust between the chicago police and the community? are there any current grassroots initiatives or initiatives in place? more transparency is always good -- >> not body cameras. it's inevitable, but it's inconsistent with getting i think people into the police profession you want. it is causing more police officers to be injured and more people to be arrested. it is an elitist industry formulation shoved down people's throats.

i believe that if you ask people in neighborhoods what they want, cameras would never have been on their list. ex post facto critiquing the place is going to be a conversation. >> how does it create more danger for the police? i really do not know the answer. >> for anyone who's been in an unscripted argument, forget about a physical confrontation, how fast can they deteriorate? part of the whole camera issue is that the idea that police are equals. please cannot be equals. if they are, they learn -- they lose, for lack of a better word, the upper hand in the street. more people are being pulled over and saying, "who the hell are you to pull me over?" they are not making requests. they're making demands. there's a study that shows they may have to throw the first blow at times a situation -- >> let me have you addressed the question though. what is being done here in chicago to create a better

atmosphere? you said body cameras are not it. is there anything happening here that will make things more palatable to people? >> i'm going to hit the big things. one thing, it starts with honesty. of the box.out you cannot put it back in the box. one of the things i was exposed in chicago -- and not just a chicago issue -- is the reality of the code of silence from top to bottom in that department. and so, this means, in terms of what needs to happen in things that are beginning to happen in chicago, but the need to go far further than where they have gone -- you have to put in place a real regime of accountability. that's how you build trust. that's how also you improve safety. the other thing, and i guess this is not a chicago thing, but there are also good examples

where police officers have taken different tactics. i challenge the notion that community policing has gone on for decades in chicago. if you were here, you would know that that is just simply not true. there has been a talk about community policing. something that has been utterly defunded in chicago from way back when. -- i actually believe in community policing and i have seen what community policing can do. one example, far from on the other side of country -- richmond, california -- i used to live there. this is right next to oakland, california. at the times when i lived there, it had the highest murder per capita in the united states. there were street times that teams and -- there were street teams and a lack of

accountability. there was a guy that came in from fargo, north carolina -- north dakota. safest middlethe sized cities of the country. .e came in he moved from fargo, north dakota to richmond, california. he implemented the same kind of policing he had implemented in white communities, and it worked. officersly had police -- he put the more experienced officers in the roughest communities. there, and they are going to build relationships. they get points not just for busting up the back eyes on the street, but they get points for also resolving a conflict without needing to make an arrest. points by taking on the more difficult things.

>> north dakota would applaud you. i don't know if we talk about much of the northern part of the country. >> last point on richmond though. 10 years later, it went way down . the rate of murder went way down. the rate at which police were solving the crime went way up. there wasn't a police shooting in richmond for 10 years after he took charge. >> was it a real estate research -- resurgence like it was in new york? >> i did want to have the touch briefly. can best i to if we think we have a person over here. >> we will answer faster if we can. [inaudible] [applause]

>> we do violence reduction strategies. all, guy in the pink shirt, you terrify me. [inaudible] >> you think that apologizing to a community is a step backward, that sent to me like the government not apologizing for slavery. you are not apologizing for things you have done wrong. >> is me a question though. -- did me a question though. >> when you said there is no reason for -- i do not understand. >> question please. >> the geithner said we protect our own. that's the guy over here said we the guy overwn --

here said we protect our own. [inaudible] what are your thoughts on fraternityng this where they do not look out? >> real quick. i never said it was backward. if we are going backward in apologizing for things in the past -- it does not mean that we should not apologize for things in the past. let me ask you, would you consider a police career? [inaudible] >> i do not think so. , again, haveo you

you restructure that fraternity? how do you define who they care about? you are going to answer, i need you to do it in 30 seconds. >> it is a great question, because it is the perception that you have police here that have their own fraternal organization that is somehow severed from the community. do,we have to continue to is for people like you and for all of us, to bring up the fact. as we recruit and begin to train better, we have to help the officers understand that neither one are going to function without the other. you cannot have good public safety if you do not have community involvement. and you can't have good police officers if you don't have good community involvement. it takes both of those entities to work together. so, that is a lot of old school

thinking. but here is what you don't hear about. the police officers out there every day that do. you just do not hear about it. they do take issue with, even get in front of, and even testify against other officers that are doing things wrong. we just do not hear about it as much. that is a great question. we are getting there, and that is what we have to do better. we have to make sure that, you as a police officer in a citizen, we are partners in this public safety. >> i would only add that i think we need later oversight. -- we need greater oversight. we need mechanisms for people outside the police department are judging and thinking and making analysis of police department action.

it does not mean that julie the butcher becomes the arbiter of everything that a police officer does, but he matters, too. we need to make sure we have oversight. police resist that at every turn. just as every organization resists oversight. but, i think we need outside oversight. people need control. power is to be restored to the community and to the people. we need to take away some of the jobs we have assigned to the police, and we have to stop criminalizing all these things that feed into the police problems such as drug abuse and mental health issues. long-term, and needs to be a minimalize role, and it needs to be a community policing itself. >> i think we are just about out of time, yes?

we are. i just want to thank all of you for participating in this conversation. panel.ou to our thanks to all of you in the audience. good afternoon. [applause] ♪ >> tomorrow, michigan is affected to certify the results of the presidential vote count. president candidate donald trump one mistake. just i'm has until wednesday to challenge the result and request a recount. she has raised $5 million to cover the cost of the recounts

in wisconsin, pennsylvania, and michigan. he is death she has found a request for a recount -- she has filed a request a recount in one of the state so far. it has been announced that the hillary clinton campaign will take part in the recount effort being spearheaded by just died. president-elect donald trump has called the recount a scam. he has criticized democrats for supporting it. he said that hillary clinton conceded the election and should accept the results. the recount was part of the sunday news topics today. we have responses from kellyanne conway and from bernie sanders. can't thethe world democrats accept the election results? us in summary

different ways, will you accept the election result? why was it that when he said he would keep us in suspense -- now you have hillary clinton who on election night called donald trump to congratulate him and concede the election to him. i was standing right there. she was on my phone with him. now, to half weeks from now, jill stein decides that she should issue a recount in wisconsin. she got 33,000 votes in wisconsin. mr. trump got over a million. it is like the number of people that tailgate at eight packers game it is not a serious effort -- that tailgate a packers game. it is not a serious effort for recount.