>> hinojosa: in every movie role he's had, from dances with wolves to the last of the mohicans to avatar he brings depth and authenticity to the characters he plays, changing the way audiences see native americans. legendary actor wes studi. i'm maria hinojosa. this is one on one. wes studi, you are an amazing actor, the star of... well, let's just say avatar, dances with wolves, last of the mohicans, geronimo. what an honor to have you on our program. i have to tell you, i want to go to a movie that came out several

years ago-- geronimo, an american legend. because you were... you carried that movie. i'm sure many of our viewers saw that. the moment that i want to talk about for a second is the moment when you first appear onscreen in that movie. and when you are looking at the american soldiers, and you have this look. the camera just kind of zeroes in on your face, and you have this look of distrust, disdain, and interest, and you captured that so well. and i just said it has to be because in your own life as a native american, growing up in oklahoma, these emotions are not... they're not far from your own life, right? >> and they're not foreign, either. yes, it's true. yeah. that's one of the advantages that we as native americans, if

you will, american indians, have a history that, if we keep up on it, you know, and we know what has happened over the years, it's something that as an actor, we can use those kinds of feelings that have been generated over the years into the performances that we provide for film when we come to a historical person like geronimo. >> hinojosa: and there were members of geronimo's family who were on the set. >> oh, absolutely, yes. >> hinojosa: and so you had to really zero in on... >> it's difficult. >> hinojosa: yeah. >> it's difficult to work up a persona for a character when you have people who are, like you say, direct relatives of, and people who... you know, there was a wide range of feelings about geronimo. i mean, he was not the loved person or the totally hated person, but he was both and in between, you know?

so how do you put together a persona for a man who has lived in that kind of a strata? and the answer for me was simply as real as possible, and for dealing with whatever particular scene was going on, whatever emotions and circumstances. how does a man deal with circumstances when he's surrounded by the enemy? >> hinojosa: you know, we know you on screen. we know your face. we know your voice. but probably what people don't know is that you grew up in oklahoma, and the first five years of your life you were on the res, and you were monolingual cherokee. and your parents made a decision early on to put you into a boarding school. >> yeah. >> hinojosa: so that you could essentially learn english. and you came back after a year, and you had forgotten all of

your cherokee. >> oh, sure, yeah. i walked back into the house after nine months away at school, and discovered all of a sudden that i had forgotten the cherokee language, because i tried to use english in my grandmother's house. and oh, she put a stop to that immediately. >> hinojosa: tell me what happened when you did. >> (speaking cherokee) is what she said immediately. and she had a scowl on her face. what she had said was, "oh, no way we're going to use english in my house, young man." i know it's... and so everybody backed her up, of course. and i was at a loss for a bit, because it had sort of been wiped from the back of my mind. so... but within a week or two, you know, of listening, and, "oh, yeah, okay." it comes back, you know? riding a bicycle. >> then you do something pretty extraordinary. i mean, a lot of time passes there, but you become a young

adult. and you do something pretty extraordinary, which is that you volunteer to go fight in the war in vietnam. and that... only because you, of course, have been in movies where war, a certain kind of war, is taking place, i wonder about that experience, of being an american indian fighting for the us government in your life, then you come back and you ended up fighting against the us government as an american indian activist. >> sure. well, you know, it's a matter of education. a lot of it, so much of it, has to do with education. because up until the time that i actually returned from vietnam, i really had very little idea of our history. and, of course, these were also times of great unrest within the united states. there was the civil rights movement, there was the antiwar movement, there was the yippies and the hippies and all of that social unrest that was going on. and all of a sudden, as a result

of that, or for whatever reason, because... the american indian movements began to appear as well. and then and there was a great time for lots of education. you know, i was unaware of the many misdeeds perpetrated on our people by the government's indifferent government. and this was a time that activism was really real, you know? and it was a time for joining in. and first you have to have the facts. you have to have the education. once you pick that up... and then that, on one hand, generates lots of anger at that point in time. >> hinojosa: within you? >> yes. >> hinojosa: around you. you were at the siege at wounded knee. it was something that if you grew up in the '60s and '70s,

you knew. >> what happened was it was actually... a tragic little comedy happened, and we wound up taking over the bureau of indian affairs building. >> hinojosa: for how many months? >> it wasn't months. it was mainly days. i think it was more like 12 to 17 days, something like that, that we held the building. and maybe not even that long. i don't really remember. but in any case, after that the movement began to spread back out into the states, back out into the dakotas, and back out into oklahoma, everywhere. there were incidents of conflict between the american indian movement and different municipalities, counties, laws, all over the united states, really. but the one that we focus on is wounded knee, because it got the biggest press coverage, and all the marlon brandos and all of the people that were... >> hinojosa: let's take a second for that, because people might... i mean, i know that for

me that moment was a marker, which is when marlon brando wins the academy award for the godfather. we all thought we were going to see... well, i know that there was some buzz about whether or not he was going to show up, and then a native american woman comes onstage and says, "he is rejecting this award," and talks about what's happening. at that moment, do you feel... did you know at that moment that that could be that moment that was in kind of our cultural lexicon as americans? the native american presence was there for all to see at the academy awards. and yet it was basically saying, "we are still powerless." >> yes, perhaps powerless. but i think that the real legacy of all that activism is what we can look at in terms of the sovereignty that's been built up throughout the indian nations, the tribal nations, whatever you would call it. and to the point that we are now... you know, we're a public presence in government

happenings, in policy and legislation and things like that. so we've finally gotten to the point that we can affect better. we have always been a part of it, but we are capable of affecting our own future through government policies and such these days because of the huge changeover in self perception, i think, that happened back then. the fact that our story was somehow represented on a national venue, or international venue, like the academy awards, was only a testament to the fact that something was going on in wounded knee at that particular point in time, and it was at first not covered by the national press, by the usa press. at first, foreign press came in, and they were covering it. and it was going all around the

world. and then the usa press said, "oh," you know? the american press decided, "well, we'd better not get left out of this." and so in they came. but... so... >> hinojosa: the point is... but, you know what? you were a radical. you were taking on the us government. you... and i'm kind of... i just wrote here, i said, "radical," and then i put a little line next to eytukan, which is... or "ay"tukan, which is the character that you played in avatar. >> right. >> hinojosa: the father of neytiri. >> well, that kind of action was only radical in that it hadn't been done in a long time. it hadn't been done since maybe the... the last time that the sioux met the american army at custer's last stand, you know? i mean, that was the last time that the press covered anything. >> hinojosa: but take me from understanding that to then, you

find, you discover that you have a home in the theater, many years later, and kind of how you put those two things together. how you understand your history as being a native american, american indian activist, who was challenging, forcefully, at all times, for your people, for your voice. fast forward several decades, and you are starring in a huge movie, controversial though it may be, avatar. how do you put those two things together now in the sense of where you came from and where you've ended up? >> i've never really stopped doing the same thing. >> hinojosa: which is? >> which is rather than taking over buildings and confronting us marshals out on the plains of south dakota or that kind of thing, these days what i do is i tell the story of our people. and because you brought up avatar, i have to tell you that

that is a story that's been told so many times before. it's true. it's a wonderful old story, and it always brings us to a spot where we think to ourselves that we really need to improve our relationships between peoples, you know? not only on group levels, but even at individual levels, you know? how we deal with one another in terms of respecting one another to begin with. and that's how i feel about... i mean, i think that's what adds to our deteriorating kind of circumstances that we have here in the states that politically... >> hinojosa: in terms of the native american population? >> well, not only us, but, i mean, it's happening to all diverse groups. as people seem to be more comfortable within their own groups, we seem to be coming away from being able to work as

a whole, you know? to be able to work as a whole, because of so many divergent interest groups, if you will. >> hinojosa: and people feeling really, really kind of grounded and rooted in that. >> grounded and rooted is good. grounded and rooted is good. on the other hand, when you use it as a self protection, it's kind of isolating. it's kind of isolating. the group... we have our groups beginning to isolate away from one another and compete more. perhaps because there's less to be han in terms of resources. >> hinojosa: well, you know, i'm wondering, because there isn't, you know... in hollywood, let's say, it's not as if you have a kind of demographic reality that you can say telling american indian stories, telling stories of native americans, is important because there's a demographic reason. we have a numbers reason to tell this story. so is hollywood in fact... i mean, you've been doing this for a while.

has it changed? >> well, thanks for the reminder. >> hinojosa: and you look fabulous. >> oh. >> hinojosa: but is it... has it gotten better? is it still... i know that you talk about respect, but with hollywood, is there still the kind of banging your head against the wall, and just saying, ome on, now"? >> really, what it comes down to, maria, is that i think everyone that goes to hollywood is going to bang their heads against the wall. some may have a better inroad. some may have... face more difficulty in beginning their careers. but i think it's just as difficult now as when i went there. >> hinojosa: wow. >> mainly because that's the nature of the beast itself, i think. i mean.... >> hinojosa: right. there's always going to... i mean, hollywood is always about that, right? >> yeah. hollywood is always about images, and the next new thing.

it's always the next new thing. and so that's what makes it difficult for guys like me to hang in there for a good long while, you know? like you say, i've been there for a while. >> hinojosa: and you've been working every year. >> i've continued to work. and i... >> hinojosa: knock on wood? >> knock on wood and thank my lucky stars, yes. >> hinojosa: i mean, because even though you've been an amazing star... for example, last of the mohicans, a lot of people said you should have been nominated for an oscar. >> yeah, but you have to remember, that was 1992, or '91. >> hinojosa: yeah, but wes, let me come back to you and say, but that movie, even on the trailer of where it says, you know, "last of the mohicans," your name doesn't even appear on that banner there. and it's just like, "but wes kind of carried that movie-- why isn't his name up there?" >> yeah, that's a good question. i... it just came out in dvd. i think you should make that remark sometime. >> hinojosa: you want me to call someone? >> yeah, call someone. >> hinojosa: "how come wes' name..." but in the sense of,

what do you say to young american indian theater types, kids who would like to become involved in the business? so you say, "go forth and try it, but be prepared, because you're going to hear no a lot, and the doors may close"? >> exactly, that's it. the only thing that i tell them is that never say never, and be ready for, like you say, a lot of rejection. and do not... please do not take it personally. i mean, you only hurt yourself when you take it personally, is how it turns out, from what i've seen and what i've lived. >> hinojosa: i know that that's easy to say, but when you think about the history of... >> some people can take it and some people can't. >> hinojosa: because there's a lot of anger there. >> well, yeah, i suppose. and many times you can say... you can always play the race card, saying that, "oh, well, they don't like indians anyway," you know? but on the other hand, you have

to keep on hammering away at it to get in as much as possible. it's... and if you're always there, if you can provide a performance, and the performance is seen somewhere, you know, you just have to continue to push it and push it and push it to the point that somebody sees you and says, "okay, i want that guy in my movie, too," you know? and that's how it works. >> hinojosa: don't you just love to hear those words? you decided that you wanted to executive produce your own work. >> yeah, yeah. >> hinojosa: you said, "you know what? i have to take control and make my own film." and so you made the film the only good indian, you executive produced, you starred in it. it's a little bit about your personal story in the sense that it's about a boy who ends up in a... one of the schools to acculturate native americans. >> they were basically boarding schools wherein children were many times forcefully extracted from their home environments and plunked into schools, boarding

schools, that... let's just say it was a really bad situation for a lot of the early kids. by the time i went to one of these schools, and this was in the '60s, when things were beginning to, you know, kind of turn around, and... i didn't suffer the many things that happened to kids in... >> hinojosa: it was not a terrible experience for you. >> for me it was not a physically or... terrible situation. >> hinojosa: this movie, though, it was not a major blockbuster. it did well at sundance film festival. but in essence, then, they can say, "well, you see? your story just isn't out there pulling those millions of audience members." >> right. it's not big enough, and there's not enough interest in the subject matter. >> hinojosa: and so you just continue to beat your head against the wall and say, "we're going to do it." but let me ask you about this, wes, because again, your life story is so fascinating.

the fact that cherokee was your first language, i want to bring that back to you, because you have become something of an activist, an educator. you wrote children's books in cherokee. and you have become active in the indigenous language protections here in our country. why? why does it matter to you so much, and why should it matter to all of us? >> it really is a matter of self identification, and a way of... how you identify yourself in the world to other individuals. it's a matter of really identity. you know, you have an identity that is based in a language other than english, gives you a perhaps different outlook on life. maybe it's just a... it may not be a huge difference, but there is a difference, and it's based in the way languages are

structured, and what is made important by just whatever the sound for, say... something like water, you know? "water" in the cherokee language is said, "ama." >> hinojosa: ama. >> ama. >> hinojosa: almost like mother. >> yeah, it's something that is like... it sounds in it's own way as sort of a warm fuzzy thing, wherein it's something that is valued, it's something that is really close to the heart. ama, you know? on the other hand, on the other hand, there's another word that you can say in the same language, cherokee, that means "salt," you know? and the only real difference is that you extend the first part of it, ama. ama is salt. and then, but you say it quicker, it's ama, ama, you know? >> hinojosa: i was actually going to ask you about the word

for "conflict," or "war" in the cherokee language. >> well, "war" in the cherokee language is "danawa." and what it connotates is conflict is something that is almost a... it's an honored necessity. it's something that's always been there, and it's something that many of our men do, because... you know, in order to subsist in the old world. you know, i mean, war was a profession, a... it was what most of the men were there for. and they also derived their identity from that, you know? >> hinojosa: so if that's the word for... >> being a warrior is a... is

not a bad thing. >> hinojosa: what is the word for peace? >> i think it's just the absence of danawa. >> hinojosa: so are our young american indian kids, are they being taught indigenous languages? are they interested? is it a struggle to keep these languages alive? >> it's a struggle, it's a struggle. it's a struggle, but it is... i see the tip of the improvement is beginning to show. and it's coming back. as a matter of fact, i think the most telling part of it all is that we have submersed... classes in submersed... wherein you speak nothing but the language, for young people, right? say from first to third grade. >> hinojosa: immersion, basically. >> total immersion, that's the word, total immersion. and a lot of these kids, what was happening was they'd come to school, and they began to use cherokee within their classes as

time... the more they learned. then they take it home. and unfortunately, they can't use it at home, because their parents don't speak it, right? >> hinojosa: but are they welcoming? are they saying, "yes, let's..." >> well, the good thing is that what's happened is that because the kids have this power, their parents are beginning to enroll in classes as well, to be able to communi... because i think we've gotten the idea across that the really only great place, good place, to start is... it has to be in the home. i mean, a language, a second language these days is a luxury, you know? it's hard to sell, because it's a luxury. but... >> hinojosa: let me ask you this. >> that's the only place it can happen, is within the home, where it meets your needs.

a language has to meet your needs, and it has to grow. that's one of the things about our own particular languages, where we have a lot of elders that would say, "oh, no, no, no, we shouldn't be able to... we shouldn't be changing the language. we shouldn't be doing this and that." or, "this is the old way, and that's the only way that's right for us." that's not the case. our language has to meet the needs of the 21st century. it's like the technologies we were talking about earlier, in that... do we have a word for a computer? do we have a word for iphone? do we have a word for a mouse, and all of that? see, my mother, who's been also involved in this endeavor, works with a committee that has been working almost constantly to come up with new words that match today's reality. >> hinojosa: in the cherokee

language. >> yeah. >> hinojosa: how beautiful. so just... >> that's the only way it can survive. >> hinojosa: so finally, wes, you know, what do you say to our public? if there are people who are just like, you know, "i want to learn more, i want to know more, i want to become involved," what do you say to them? what's... if somebody has a further interest in understanding our own american indian roots at this moment, what do you say to them? "go watch movies, go read books"? leave us with that thought, of what you want them to do. >> i think that you open up your mind and make a conscious effort to look around your surroundings. and more than likely, wherever you live within the united states, you're going to find someone, some group of indians there, that you could actually meet on a one-to-one basis. >> hinojosa: so open your eyes, open your mind, and interact. >> open your mind and engage. >> hinojosa: thank you, wes studi, for engaging with us.

it's really been an honor to have you on the program. >> i think there wasn't enough time. >> hinojosa: (laughs) well, obviously we'll come back for part two. thank you so much for all of your work. >> the sequel. >> hinojosa: the sequel. continue the conversation at wgbh.or/oneonone.

hello and become to kqed newsroom. i'm thuy vu. coming up on our program a closer look at proposition 61, a pat local measure aimed at lowering prescription drug prices. author josh le. ws explains why paternity leave is critical for business and society. wildfires have been raging across the state. a wildfire in lake county north of napa has displaced hundreds of residents and burned about 4,000 acres. this week governor jerry brown declared a state of emergency in southern california for a devastating the blaze that has sent more than 80,000 people fleeing their homes in san bernardino county. while wildfires in california are nothing new, experts warn they may be getting

more frequent skin tense. joining me to explain why is scott stevens, professor of fire science at uc berkeley, welcome. so far this year we've been hundreds of square miles of acreage burned in wildfires in california. how does this compare to previous years? >> southern california and central california are ahead. i think we've had a real dry period in southern california. el nino year, usually that means 150% precipitation in southern cal, this year they got about 75%. very dry. they really are ahead, they have really dry conditions. north of the golden gate we haven't had that many fires. as you alluded to there's a terrible fire in lake county. >> will things get worse as september and october roll around? that's when the santa ana winds kick in. >> that's right. we go into later into the season, we would expect worse conditions. especially in southern california. the santa anas come in october, november. really severe winds out of the east. that's our worst season. >> california has had five years of drought.

how does climate change exacerbate drought conditions and the fire danger that comes with that? >> it really increases the temperature so we do have drought like you mention. we've had droughts in the past but we don't have hot droughts as much as today. the hotness of the drought causes vegetation to dry faster, so it predispolicies the fuel bed to more flammability. >> what are we looking at, is in the new normal with all these intense fires occurring more frequently? there is in some ways especially the shrub lands. they turn eped socally and burn stand replacement. nose systems are predisposed to big fires. climate change is going to make that more difficult, more drought, more variability. the forests are a different condition. you can do some things to them to predispose them to reduce the potential for bad fire, bad fire effects. can't really do that in shrub lands. >> why can't you do that with chaparral, for example?

>> chaparral, you can't underburn it. you can do some treatments like chip and it do things like that. sometimes that has bad ecological consequences like nonnative plants increase. so when you try to do work with it, you can burn it and cause a mosaic of vegetation. but under severe conditions like santa anna, even the mosaic can be overdone bit wind. >> so from a forest management perspective, what can be done to reduce the impact of wildfires? >> what we need to do is restoration at scale. what that means is essentially trying to reduce the density of trees, reduce the density of shrubs. the surface fuel, the wood on the ground. we want to reduce it. we want to get it to a point when it does burn, we have a five-year drought, essentially maybe 70% of the forest survives. so actually the forest continues, evolves, all that goes on, instead of having these large mortality patches where we lose everything. we're going to work on the forests before the fire, before the drought, so we can set it up to be more resilient. >> and trees do have an incredible amount of survivability when it comes to fires. you brought an example of a tree.

show us what the rings on it demonstrate. >> sure. this is a ponderosa pine cross section from a piece of wood just outside of quincy, california, northern sierra nevada. what this shows is a sequence of injuries. the injuries are recorded for individual fires. so the fire comes and burns at the base of the tree and causes an injury, small lesion. the lesion is recorded in the tree ring. this particular tree has about 20 different fire scars. it survived 20 fires in its lifetime. the first around 1650. the last one around ape 50. >> what does this tell us about how we can do controlled burns? >> what that tells us is we go into the site, we start to manipulate them by burning or thinning or combinations of burning and thing. we're right inside the ecology of the organism. it's actually an organism that's really adapted to frequent disturbance so we can go in there five years, 15 years, work with it, reduce density, do some burning and we're inside the ecology of the ecosystem. >> is the u.s. forest service doing anything now to update its forest remanagement practices? >> they are. right now in the southern sierra nevada we're going through a

land management revision process. this hasn't happened since 1985. >> that long? >> 1985. climate change wasn't even on the radar then. now the inyo, sequoia, and sierra national forests are going through land management revision. they're thinking about resiliency, about climate change, about fire, and trying to come up with a way to manage forests. >> in your research you have said that that type of forestry management, they need to do it ten times, at ten times the level what they're doing now. is the plan they have in place good enough to achieve that? >> i think it is. the plan, i've looked at them, they're looking forward, thinking about managing lightning fire, remote areas to get more fire on the ground ecologically, thinking about restoration. you're right, ten times the current level is the back of the envelope calculation and sometimes people think, that's nuts. but if you don't change trajectory on these forests and build resiliency into them, integrate it, we're going to set

ourselves up for catastrophic outcomes in the the future. >> we've been seeing footage of the fires here and you have to feel for those families. the tens of thousands of families that have to evacuate because of wildfires. especially bad in lake county, they saw the same thing happen last year. how should land management strategy change to mitigate loss of life and property? >> that is a real challenge. the way we built in our environment frankly doesn't take fire into account. that's kind of a sad thing. we have housed disperses in ponderosa pine forests, chaparral. we can try to get people to revise their outside of their houses with flame-resistant materials. try to reduce vegetation near your home. try to make it less vulnerable to ember attack. embers come in from the wind and start small spot fires. the other thing in the future is better land management planning, land use planning, try to put houses in places that are less vulnerable to fire. so that is a real effort for the entire state. >> so what happens in 20, 30

years from now, if we don't do anything? >> i think what happens is we continue to chase our tail. and it gets worse. eventually we're going to have so many large first -- the rim, king, sierra nevada -- they begin to fragment our landscapes. that makes us nervous. wildlife habitat, all sorts of things. if we don't change trajectory in 30 years our kids and grandkids will have a different experience. forests will be fragmented. there will be forests. low density, shrubs, standing snags, less forest cover. it will be a different environment. but essentially we have to -- that's why i think we have 25, 30 years to begin that transformation. >> are you hopeful? that we can make that transformation? >> i'm very hopeful. because the research we have shows we can do it inside the ecology. we've shown that. others have shown it. i think forests soar important in this state. so important for water, wildlife, carbon, aesthetics. we can't led them go to the back, go negative. i am hopeful. i think the people of california and managers of california forests really want this to

happen. i'm hopeful it could happen. >> scott stevens, thank you for that explanation on wildfires and the science of it all. scott stevens, uc berkeley professor of fire science. on to politics. a look at a ballot measure that tackles prescription drug pricing. >> let's send the greedy drug companies and the rest of the country a loud message. no more profits over patients. >> look into the facts about the misleading state drug contracting initiative and you'll see that it's a problem masquerading as a solution. >> every year the state of california pays billions of dollars for prescription drugs for retired public employees, low-income residents on medi-cal, and prisoners. prop 61 aims to lower the price of those drugs. kqed senior editor for politics and government scott shafer has more. >> proposition 61 on the

november ballot would prevent state agencies from paying more for prescription drugs than what the u.s. department of veterans affairs pays. va is allowed to negotiate for lower prices on behalf of roughly 9 million veterans. joining me to discuss the pros and cons of prop 61 are roger salazar, spokesman for yes on proposition 61. and kathy fairbanks, spokeswoman for no. welcome to both of you. roger, you're in favor of this. how byte work? >> basically, it's very simple. all the measure does is simply tie the amount of money that the state of california pays for the prescription drugs that it purchases as a payee to the same price, to the lowest price of what the u.s. department of veterans affairs pays. this is a starting point. i think californians are tired of high drug prices. the price gouging going on by the drug industry. this is the first step in trying to rein in those prices. it's something the legislature

or congress has not done californians are taking this on themselves. >> you say it's simple yet the legislation analyst says it's not simple at all, there are a lot of aspects they're not sure how it's going to be implemented. >> i think some of the uncertainty is based on the threats that are coming from the drug industry. the drug industry is threatening to raise prices so therefore that creates uncertainty. the drug industry is threatening to pull out. these are things that are not in the measure but are threats we're hearing from the drug indust industry. >> based on the information va has to give and it's unclear whether the state can get that information? >> there's nothing under law that prevents va from showing what their prices are. in fact, we've done it through our freedom of information act requests. we've been able to do so. there's nothing in the law that prevents them from doing that. we think that anybody who says that you can't get it is simply not wanting to put in the effort and the work to do it. >> a huge amount of money has been raised to defeat this. $70 million, more than any other

ballot measure for or against. why do the drug companies feel so strongly? what is the threat exactly? >> well, there's a whole bunch of threats. you pointed to a few. it's not just the industry that's engaged, it's more than 130 other groups representing doctors, patient advocates, veterans, taxpayers, civil rights groups, business groups, labor unions. all are opposed to prop 61. because it is very complicated as you pointed out. >> but the vast majority of the money comes from drug companies -- >> that is true. that initiative would upend agreements that pharmaceutical manufacturers currently have with the various state health care programs, possibly with the va. it's a market shift. and it would require the industry to renegotiate a lot of those contracts and it threatens the relationships that some of the companies have with the state. the most important part though is the loss of these contracts. >> it threatens profits too for the drug companies, right? >> well, i don't know that i'd say that. i think it's more that this

changes the way the marketplace works. when you think about what the va program was created for, and roger's right, it is a program or it is a -- the va gets low prices for pharmaceutical drugs. it was created as a special program just for the va. it was never expected to be expanded to other agencies. >> why shouldn't it somebody how do consumers benefit when the government can't negotiate better prices as they do in other countries? u.s. is one of the few countries that can't do that. >> no, the state of california does negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers for drug prices. they negotiate very heavily. the department of health care services which oversees medi-cal fee for service, they negotiate very heavily. cal pers negotiates the department of general services which oversees for the prisons and local hospitals. >> the federal government for the affordable care act, for example, and the prescription drug expansion under president george w. bush, they're prohibited, the government is prohibited -- >> i don't know that that's the case. >> i believe it is. >> okay, well, it doesn't matter. this isn't going to affect the

federal government. it's not going to affect this program. it's going to affect californians. >> one of the claims your campaign makes is that if this occurs, and if these prices are linked to the va, that prices are going to go up for veterans. there's nothing in prop 61 that says that? >> that's correct, that's correct. but this program, the same type of thing extending va prices to other agency, was tried in the early 1990s called obra. prices to va went up, congress repealed the law because of that. >> why did they go up? basically you're saying the drug companies would raise prices on veterans? >> it could happen. we're not saying it will happen. all of this is as the lao pointed out a very complicated issue. and it depend on this the negotiations between the companies, the state, the va. one of the things we haven't touched on that the lao touched on was the fact that the va prices that prop 61 is linked to aren't even public. state law like prop 61, which is statutory initiatives, can't

override federal law. so it's not true that the prices could become public. >> some of that information is protected and there are exemptions to the freedom of information act. >> yeah, but we were able to determine what those prices were. >> no -- >> yes, we have. and again, i think what's interesting to me here, and look, we understand that the drug industry's going to be spending upwards of $70 million, some say up to $100 million, to try and defeat this initiative. it's not because they want to see lower drug prices. it's not because they're afraid not enough people are going be covered. they're afraid that this is going to basically start a tide from california all across the country -- >> there are also a lot of patient advocate groups, hiv groups, diabetes, they're concerned it's going to have a negative impact on them. >> a lot of it's -- there are a lot of -- the fearmongering, the fear that's being raised by the drug industry saying there are threats they're going to raise prices. also to be frank a lot of it has to do with the fact that a lot of these groups are beholden

financially to the drug industry. so i hear the arguments from the drug industry where they say, look, not enough people are covered and i think that's ludicrous. the drug industry arguing they're opposed to a drug relief measure because not enough people are being covered is like nra saying they don't like gun control because not enough guns are covered, it's ridiculous. >> a measure in the legislature that died this week to explain when the drug prices go up, the bill died in the assembly, and pharma opposed it. >> i'm not working for pharma -- >> but that's who's funding -- >> i can't speak to that bill, i didn't work on that bill. i can tell you that the supporters of that bill made it clear they intend to come back

next year and the year after that and the year after that and try to move another bill similarly through the legislature. i would argue that is where policy ought to be done. this is what's wrong with proposition 61. you've got one entity, the aids health care foundation, bankrolling the entire thing. they had their lawyer draft it in secret, didn't show it to anybody before it was put on the ballot. wasn't shared with prominent hiv groups, i know that. and you can't -- there's no opportunity to identify flaws like there is in the legislature. >> how would you advise -- how are you going to convince patient advocates and people who have diabetes and hiv and kidney disease who are concerned about this that they should vote are to it? >> again, we have to have a starting point from this. the examples that you just mentioned in the legislature where they couldn't even pass a transparency bill, how do we think we're going to be able to pass a drug pricing bill in the legislature if they can't even pass something that just deals with let us know what the costs are and how you come up with

your costs. one of the things we're going to be doing as we talk to voters, first of all, they're already with us. all the polling we've done shows that this has upwards of 70% approval from the voters. they are sick and tired of these high drug prices. if we can convince voters this is a start in lowering those drug prices, they're going to be with us. >> wouldn't you agree as a consumer at least drug prices are very expensive in many cases? gilead had a $1,000 a pill hepatitis "c" drug, for example. those things make a lot of news and fuel support for things like this, don't they? >> i think that's a very good argument to make for the yes on 61 side. certainly tap into people's concerns about higher health costs. the thing that we haven't heard yet is how will proposition 61 work in the real world, how will it lower drug prices? lao has acknowledged that the medi-cal fee for service, the state, the largest state program covered by prop 61 could face higher costs. not lower costs, higher costs.

>> that's because they're worried about the threats of the drug companies increasing the prices. >> no -- >> we believe that if we can have an impact at the beginning with just -- first of all, the state of california pays $4 billion for prescription drug prices. if we're able to get the same discounts we get from va, 24% discount, that saves the state about $1 billion a year. that kind of pressure, it's going to lead to other state agencies wanting it, it's going to lead to private entities wanting it, it's going to lower costs overall. >> we've got less than a minute. best argument for voting yes on prop 61? >> like i said, californians are sick and tired of high drug prices, they're tired of leaders not being able to do anything about it. here's an opportunity for californians to be able to take these matters into their own hands by voting yes on prop 61 and lowering drug prices. >> not going to lower dangerous costs in california, it could lead to reduced access to head sin for some patients especially in medi-cal program, could lead

to litigation against the state of california because there's no implementation language. it's overall bad for the state of california. >> voters have 80 days to figure it out for themselves. hopefully this will help get them asking questions and maybe give them some answers as well. kathy fairbanks, no on prop 61. roger salazar, yes on the measure. thank you very much. in this presidential election year, paid family leave has emerged as a top workplace issue in the runup to the democratic nomination, both hillary clinton and bernie sanders called for a federal program providing 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave. and before he dropped out of the race republican senator marco rubio suggested tax credits as incentive for employers to offer paid leave. in general conversation, when people talk about such policies, they're usually referring to maternity leave. our next guest is working to change that. josh webb is the author of "all in" which focuses on how our work culture fails dads.

welcome to the program. >> thank you so much for having me, i'm glad to be here, let's talk. >> let's talk about how we are currently doing as society in addressing fatherhood in the national discussion over gender equity. >> oh, boy. terribly overall. but it's part of the same problem. when we talk about how america is the only developed nation that has no paid maternity leave, the flip side of that is that there are all these pressures on dads as well to not be caregivers. we have a sexist structure. we've built our work structure in this mad men era with a mad men way of thinking. women stay home with babies, men stay at work. when i explain is we have laws, policies and statements that are keeping it that way. the workplace has clampld we have this traditional structure that people are working in that has not changed. let's talk about the stigmas about men who take paternity leave. we reached out to viewers on facebook about this and it seemed to resonate with a lot of people. we had a number of men write in, including joey who says he got negative reactions from other

men about his paternity leave, in fact, one co-worker told him, six weeks, i quote, "six weeks, ha, i was back at work the next day." >> that's a good thing. right. so what we have are recurring statements that have not gone away in the american workplace. the strange thing is by far the vast majority of today's dads do value family over work. value family over money. unfortunately, the few who don't keep getting raised up the ranks in the workplace, and the reason is that we have this work culture that still is based on this idea that if you're a man, you should keep working, working, working. and women should then stay home. so these cultures are actually making it so that even when paternity leave is available, which is rare, the vast majority of it goes unused. part of the problem is making sure that the stigmas are no longer there, that people in the workplace aren't thinking that they're saying something great about themselves by saying, go me, i came right back to work. you should never take pride in turning down paternity leave. >> this is all happening at a time when more and more women

are breadwinners as well. you say that it is important for companies to embrace fatherhood. >> crucial. it's crucial. when you embrace fatherhood -- one of the things i talk about in this region is the importance of raising women up the ranks. something that the tech sector talks about a lot. in general in america there are few women leaders, very few women executives. the reason that is we have these sexist tours. what structures. we need to embrace modern fatherhood. make sure in the workplace that we have policies and culture that encourages men to also be ones to stay home, to get flexible schedules, to take care of their children. the more you do that, the more you'll have real gender equality in the workplace. >> what are the barriers? you made a point that even when the paternity leave policies exist, a lot of men choose not to take them. why, are there negative consequences? >> yes, absolutely. in my book, you wouldn't believe the things that happen. one guy took paternity leave in a horrible emergency situation mr. when he came back he was

demoted then fired. ultimately in a deposition his bosses admitted they had a traditional macho view. i had a legal situation in what i faced at cnn. my legal case involved the same idea. the workplace -- >> tell bus that. >> sure. >> how you got involved in this topic. >> sure. i was a reporter, npr, then cnn. cnn, i was a fact checker. i started covering fatherhood and doing segments on it. then i became the dad in the news. because there was this policy at cnn in which anyone could get ten paid weeks to care for their child, except a dad who got his own wife pregnant. who had a baby old-fashioned way. >> what were the men given? >> two paid weeks. >> that was it? >> if i gave my daughter up for adoption and someone else adopted her, he could get ten paid weeks. it's the idea a traditional dad couldn't an caregiver. >> you challenged it? >> i did. unfortunately ultimately they made the decision to change the policy, which was great, a lot of attention came from that. but when so much attention came to me and my family i became fascinated as a journalist. why are so many people interested in my story?

why are women's groups and men's groups and business leaders talking about this? i came to understand that we are all in this. everyone who wants real equality is starting to understand that yes, you have to focus on lifting women up the ranks but you have to make sure that you're also giving men the chance to be caregivers. >> you're in silicon valley a lot giving talks, you interviewed a number of silicon valley executives for your book. how does the area fare in comparison to the rest of the country on family leave policy? >> the good news is when i travel overseas, i talk about the bay area. the bay area in terms of the big tech giants starting to show that more parental leave, more paid family leave, that's gender neutral, is good for business. that is a fantastic sign. >> in san francisco recently, among the best policies in the nation, six weeks of fully paid time off. >> right, and it's interesting. because the state already has a model for paid family leave which is what we need especially, people pay into an insurance fund, it's not up to employers.

san francisco has called on employers to supplement. so it's 100% of pay during that time. but -- >> why do you think it's so hard to get a national policy on this? because san francisco's got one, california's got one that's more progressive. polls show a majority of americans support paid family leave. why is this so hard to get a national policy? >> it's proving good for business, and most independents, democrats and republicans want it. i've been on capitol hill. the challenge is getting brave republicans to do what the republican majority wants them to do which is support paid family leave. right now it's not on the radar of republicans. they're not so much against it as they are not focusing on it or thinking about it. what we need is true bipartisan consensus like you have here in california, new jersey, new york passed this. when we pass that we'll be helping families and businesses and we'll be increasing profits and growing the economy. so it's really a necessity. >> you talk about how much more progressive tech companies are than the rest of the country. but a lot of them are big and can afford this kind of stuff. what about the smaller

businesses? to give fully paid time off, 6 to 12 weeks, won't it hurt their bottom line? >> no. what i want is a system like what california has for the state. and that is where workers are paying into a fund through a payroll deduction. when they're off, they're paid through that fund, so the business doesn't have to pay them during that time. san francisco's new decision is unique. most of these are not going to do what san francisco did in telling employers that they have to supplement the rest of it. what we need nationally isn't a mandate on employers to pay people's salaries while they're off, it's to create an insurance fund that workers have this payroll deduction. when you need paid family heave to care for a child, elderly parent, sick spouse, or yourself, you get that. we know it's good for business. >> who does this hurt the most in the lack of national consent? even california's policy, it doesn't give you 100% pay for the time that you're off. it seems like if you're in a traditional blue collar or minimum wage job, these are people who have the least resources, who need this kind of

help the most. >> right, they are. and there are people in my book, including here in san francisco, who are at the lowest end of the economic spectrum. one of the biggest reasons we need a national paid family leave program as i lay out in the book is it will help people who are at the lowest end, anyone paying into social security, we also need to focus on things like transportation availability and living wages and making sure that there's affordable homes. all those things factor in. but when it comes to this, it's important to keep in mind, fathers and mothers are suffering and we can do better with these kinds of policies. josh le. ws, thanks for coming in, author of "all in." that does it for us. i'm thuy vu. thanks so much for watching. for all of kqed's news coverage, go to kqednews.org.

welcome to this edition of equal time. i'm your host, journalism school director, bob rucker. one of the biggest public libraries in california is right here on the campus of san jose state university. but there's friction between towns-people and academic gowns. i would hope personally that i'm not in anybodies way, or taking up someone's space. this space is shared by students and the community. and that includes the homeless population of silicon valley. we'll explore the needs of both sides on this edition of equal time. [music] some students here on campus are complaining,