Transcripts For CSPAN2 Tonight From Washington 20120818

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning everyone and we apologize for being a little behind. i think the one thing we no, especially given the subject matter here this morning and with the anticipate of a our special guest, everyone here at is safe, secure and -- [laughter] and non-violent. in their behavior. we are here this morning to discuss -- this is a forum on a effective effective approaches to reducing violence in our cities all across america. we have a great, great panel and we will be introducing the members very shortly. but, this particular panel discussion is about discussing the unique and effective ways of addressing what i personally believe is one of the most serious problems facing cities all across the united states of america and that of of course is unfortunately the issue of violence. certainly many of you already know that reducing violence is the top priority for me personally. i will be talking a little bit more about that tomorrow. but as mayor of philadelphia and vice president of u.s. conference of mayors i have a particular focus on the issue of violence in my city and cities all across the united states. i will give you a little bit of the picture of the country. in 2010, there were nearly 13,000 murder victims across the united states of america. on average each day, 16 young people between the ages of 10 and 24 are murdered. 86% of them are male. african-americans account for 50% of the total homicide victims and 85% of those victims are black men. of the offenders committing these murders, 16% are of lack men under the age of 24. it is clear that unfortunately we are watching an entire generation of african-american men falling behind. watching the next generation of our children grow up without fathers, uncles and male positive role models and watching our communities crumble under the weight of incarceration, drugs, illiteracy and most of all violence. we are watching a and of course many are asking the question, what are we doing? at the national level in addition to my work for the u.s. conference of mayors i have been working with senator landrieu and many others to establish an organization called cities united. it's a diverse coalition of mayors and -- is a part of that as well, working in partnership with with a 480 of stakeholder organizations to reduce violent deaths among black men and boys. i want to encourage all of our mayors and again i will be talking about this tomorrow to some extent, to join us in this effort, speaking about what cities united is trying to do and what we expect to do in the weeks and years to come. several cities, officials are implementing what is often referred to as the cease-fire model, and that is what we are going to discuss in this particular form. cease-fire provides a unique interdisciplinary public health approach to preventing violence. began in chicago and is being implemented in several cities including baltimore, new orleans and philadelphia. it's a subject of rigorous evaluations and it's been demonstrated to show that it is working. and philadelphia cease-fire is one of our tools in the overall strategy to reduce violence. working with local partners like temple university we have applied for federal grants to enhance or strategy. we are very grateful to the robert wood johnson foundation for sponsoring this forum and making it possible for mayors across the country to learn about cease-fire and how it operates. i want all of you to be able to go home with this information about cease-fire and how it works in a number of cities across america. the conference of mayors looks forward to continuing to work with the robert wood foundation to provide mayors and others on this issue and other issues affect in our city's most vulnerable residents. let me talk a little bit about our panelist. we are pleased to have with the cease-fire's founder and executive director,. with his planning work in chicago that has led to the application of public health, treating violence is an infectious disease to reduce shootings and killings. positions and epidemiologist, gary is professor of epidemiology at the university of illinois at chicago. gary is going to describe the cease-fire model for us in this form. we will also hear from our good friend baltimore mayor, stephanie blake. the city has the longest-running application, replication of cease-fire model outside of illinois. among other things in the conference of mayors she serves as the device chair for art games in youth development in our criminal and social justice committee. following her will be jennifer jennifer -- at the university of washington and is maintained a affiliation with the bloomberg school of public health where she participated in the recent -- recently completed evaluation of all to more cease-fire replication. as a result of that evaluation she will be discussing. and we will hear from new orleans mayor mitch landrieu about his city's most recent effort to implement the cease-fire model. ashley swearingen will provide the perspective that them -- she will discuss cease-fires replicability. who wrote these? [laughter] and her city and how it relates to the efforts -- that is not something i usually say in philadelphia. [laughter] but how her efforts are already underway to reduce violence. finally, jane love, team director of the vulnerable populations portfolio at the robert woods johnson foundation. she will discuss the foundation's effort to provide information to mayors in cities across the country about cease-fire and assist them in implementing this model. i will ask our panelist to be brief and that always happens at the u.s. conference of mayors and any paddle that i have been on a i have always ignored that request and we expect the same to be true this morning. we certainly do want to leave the bed of them time for q&a at the end. therefore, mayor slutkin you're up. >> speak and everybody here may? good morning. how is everyone? thank you mayor nutter and everybody for coming. i'm going to talk today about the cease-fire health model, public health model. the theory behind it and how it works and the results and also kind of the way ahead. the way that i would like to start is by thinking about this problem in the context of other problems in the history of -- obstructed our process and this is a painting. the reason i bring it up which of course we now know is an infectious disease centuries ago, we were stuck with a situation where people were dying in neighborhoods. people did not want to go in those neighborhoods. the people themselves were blamed, and we frequently have solutions like a dungeon. the reason that we went to solutions such as this is because we did know but was going on and the reason we didn't know what was going on is because there were invisible processes going on which we had not scientifically gotten there to figure it out. in this case it was a microorganism inside of a flea inside of a rat. who knew? arsons now with respect to the problem of violence is that we have not, or maybe we are now just beginning to understand the invisible brain processes that are going on underneath us that allow us now to move on to better scientific positioning in developing a more scientific approach to the possibility of putting this problem behind us. in the essence of that we are still working with the same type of solution. however if we begin to look at this now in a scientific way in this particular city we begin to look at these maps and say wait a second, here we see geographic clustering of space. this is absolutely typical of the epidemic process. likewise if we look at graphs of violence over time we see not linear ways but curvilinear ways or waves on top of ways typical also of infections are epidemic processes. one of reasons why criminologists and economists and others have difficulty saying well, violence went up or down because of this or that is because they are looking for linear responses. when this is a more transmissible type of process. then of course we all know that violence begets violence but what does that really mean? what it means is there is transmissibility that being exposed to violence as a young person or even further on as a victim or even observing it, you are more likely to do violence. not everything is transmissible. tb leads to tb and the flu leads to the flu. diabetes does not lead to more diabetes. being exposed to someone with a stroke is not mean that you are more likely to have a stroke. this is a transmissible infectious process so if we proceed and speak about this now, think about violence as a scientific issue an order to develop a scientific approach. we would not only be looking at is epidemiology but also behavior. what else could it be? so it left me wondering where do behaviors come from? does anybody want to no? where do behaviors come from in the first place? it turns out a lot of behaviors are model. the majority of models -- haters are model. this is called social learning. what is going on in the brain is not thinking about it but unconscious mirror neurons circuits that cause us to do what we observe to a certain extent. what keeps behaviors in place as it turns out is what other people think or what we think other people think, will be what we call social expectation. these kids may not have bought about it but they know what is expected of them, to fight. gets expected of you to not smoke today, these are social expectations of others and they are scientific pathways in the brain that allow this. the need to belong. dopamine pathways that are powerful as being used for food and are also used for social belongings. social isolation shows up as pain in the brain. it's important to belong. than we have this escalation capability of violence which has to do with dysregulation of the emotion or the limbic system and hypervigilance and all this. so if you put these together what you get is infectivity of behavior following escalation, epidemic process, but there's there is good news biscuits -- because we know how to reverse epidemics and there is only praying things you need to do to reverse epidemics. one, intro transmission. secondly find who is likely to transmit and then provide what is needed and in this case a need for change and then shift the underlying norms. this is called public health and this is called world health reverses epidemics especially contagious epidemics such as this. so to interrupt transmission you need to find someone who can detect and interrupt the process. will use violence in directors for the stage of the system. the second is you have to find who else is a likely person to do violence which we can do in the neighborhoods for certain epidemiologic and other characteristics in that -- and begin to applied behavioral change with them and laughed for, underlying social norms that drive the whole thing so that it's very acceptable to violence and becomes less acceptable. this is what it looks like on the street. interruption, which of course has two steps, detection from sources of information in the community, sources of information elsewhere including in the hospital. they are trained in how to persuade and interrupt. changing the thinking is the job of the cease-fire outreach workers. and then changing the underlying norms through a number of methods that the community managers put into place including responses to ever shooting using multiple messengers. the clergy has a role. the public education campaign and so on. if you put this into play, shootings over time come you see a rapid reduction and then when the program got doubled even further drops and the or added. this was the community that went from over 30 shootings and killings to three. we have two communities that have gone from 220 and one from over 426. an average 45% drop. eight more communities, three sets of controls. before-and-after hotspot mapping, shootings before and after. these are the results of the study, a set of four studies really at the department of justice supported. seven years aboard, tenure-based findings. these are not one-year results. this is not before and after. this is not self-reported. this is an independent evaluation independently funded department of justice study. gang network analysis, five of the neighborhoods had 100% reduction in retaliation. the baltimore work will be described, but besides the significant results there was a spread of the behavior change shown in a relationship between interruption and homicide reduction. this is the program that was in the film, the interrupter's for those of you who have seen it. this theory has been explored by "the new york times magazine" and the cover story. the other contagion is urban violence at virus and the world edition of the economists call this the approach that will come to prominence. recently at the institute of medicine we reviewed the literature and the research confirming the theoretical basis of this work. so we are now working in about 15 cities around the country including some of these on the panel. we are working in five other countries because the state department and the pentagon and others are interested in this in particular in latin america and elsewhere. so in summary this is a scientific approach. it comes that this problem from a different angle. law enforcement does what it does and this comes at a different angle of the same time so it's synergistic. this behavior change and validated not only by research studies but by very detailed independent studies and it allows us to begin to think about this problem differently than punishment. this is a intentionally medieval script into a new way of thinking about this as an acquired behavior where we need to do different sets of actions. the advantage of this is a safer neighborhood, newer angle using an effective approach, adding to law enforcement and i want to highlight changing the norms which is the long-term solution that we want in our neighborhoods. these are our challenges. the biggest challenge is sticking with the model. if you do the model the way it is, it works. if you are doing something else or saying you are, good luck. if we can help in these ways and myself and candace payne who was with me and josh grant woods will help on the adaptation of the model, assessing whether your city is the right place and you have the right hotspots. on changing norms, the hostile intervention which i didn't have time to talk about really and educating our adversary on this approach. these are -- and you also have information in your seats. thank you very much. [applause] >> dr. slutkin thank you very much. we are now going to hear from stephanie rollins blake. >> good morning and thank you. i've like to thank you mayors and mayor nutter for convening this form on a critical topic in after hearing dr. slutkin, let's just go right into question-and-answer. so given its unique approach and demonstrated effectiveness baltimore implemented the cease-fire chicago model back and -- sorry, 2007. it is overseen as you should be based on the model by the city's health department and an plummeted by a community-based organization in a police post with a high level of violence. a role of the local health department in combating any public health issues such as aids, heart disease or cancer is to identify and interventions and work with the committee to implement them with fidelity and monitor the effectiveness. as such the city's health department has adopted the same approach to combat violence by creating the youth violence prevention under the safe streets baltimore program. the health department is responsible for managing a vigorous defender and site selection process as well as providing technical assistance and intense monitoring to ensure the adherence to the cease-fire model. additionally the health department implements a citywide public education campaign and develops plans for expansion as well as sustainability. the program currently operates in two of the most violent neighborhoods with two additional neighborhoods to be launched over the next year. eligible areas are predominantly in the top 25% of communities in areas with the highest rates of violence and implementing organizations have a history of proven success with the targeted areas. when funding becomes available community-based organizations within the eligible areas are encouraged to apply through aarp process. critical for new site selection, excuse me criteria for new site selection includes a demonstrated understanding of the cease-fire chicago model, the organization's capacity to implement the program, the reputation and credibility within the targeted area and experience in providing services to the targeted population. sends dr. whitehill will present the findings of the independent evaluations i'm not going to go into the specifics of the program however i would like to briefly discuss what we believe attributed to our successful results. first come first-come as first msn evidence-based program it's essential that the program is implemented to the model. having staff separate from the site level individuals as we do it health department to monitor model parents and provide technical assistance has been critical to our success. we piloted the adaptation of the model with the modified staffing plan to two adjacent police post, one who determined the model didn't quite have the same level of effectiveness we reverted to the standard model on the police post. second evaluation identifying conflict mediations were key to the reduction in violent incidents and specifically significant reductions in homicide -- and we had as many conflict mediations per month as significant reduction. having the right outreach staff with the right skills is the most critical elements to conducting high-risk conflict mediation and it's essential to the initiative. finally, and i know this is a challenging time for mayors all over the country when it comes to funding. i will share some cost information related to the program. baltimore has the distinction of operating the longest running cease-fire replication and since the program's inception we have never needed to spend operates -- suspend operations because of lack of funding. we attribute the program, the sick says that to being housed within an agency that has the capacity to obtain funding from a broad range of sources, federal and state grants as well as foundation, support and individual donations. and the help of dr. slutkin. danno cost of implementing and monitoring safe streets in baltimore was $500,000 per site. that compares to the cost of both financial and emotional shooting incidents so the cease-fire model has saved many many lives in baltimore and last year we were down to the lowest homicide rate since 1977. and i'm pleased with the results and hope to be able to spread it in more areas. thank you. >> thank you, mayor. [applause] ms. whitehill you are next. [inaudible] i am jennifer whitehill -- okay. is that better? i am here on behalf of my colleague at johns hopkins and the together completed the independent scientific evaluation of baltimore safe streets program. i'm really grateful to be here today to discuss their findings with all of the. what we found in a nutshell is that safe streets had great success in reducing serious violence in the neighborhoods where was implemented with the most fidelity to the cease-fire model. our study focused on the four neighborhoods were safe streets operated between 2007 in and 2010. these neighborhoods appear on the map in green. the first safe streets site was in the calgary park and later that baltimore side was expanded to two other neighborhoods, elwood park and madison. there was another site in south baltimore and a neighbor called cherry hill. the yellow areas are the other neighborhoods that were also in the top 25% for homicides in shootings. that is what we used as a comparison group for a study. we also looked at the neighborhoods before the safe streets neighbor is to see if there was a spillover and the results to those neighboring areas. at that is what you see on that map in blue. to measure the effect of the program on gun violence we obtain from the baltimore city police department through each neighborhood we measured changes in homicides in the name -- might not be low shootings before and after the program is implemented. we compare that difference to the same time period and the similar high violence neighborhoods and we made the same comparison for the border neighborhoods. we wanted to be sure that the results could be attributed to safe streets and not something else away control for for the basement level of violence in the neighborhoods using variations, drug arrest, weapon arrests and also special policing activities that were focused at the same time on reducing violent crime. this table shows will be found in terms of the percent change of homicides and nonfatal shootings relative to the comparison neighborhoods. the asterisk indicates the results that were statistically significant part of the clearest results when the cherry hill neighborhood. after safe streets was implemented there that neighborhood had a 66% decrease in homicides in a 34% decrease in non-fatal shootings. it appears as some of those positive effects spilled over to the adjacent communities. things are a little bit more complicated in east baltimore. initially they might calgary park neighborhood saw excellent results with those three sites did share a management team and by the time the program got going in that neighborhood it happened that a very long-running gang shoot arrested the same month the program got started and that was before the outreach workers that dr. slutkin was describing had an opportunity to get in the community and influence things so an additional complication was that some of the staff resources from mcelderry park were directed away from that situation but we did find that mcelderry had a 63% reduction in homicides during the month when the staff was not occupy it and a in a whole other area. so in elwood park we did not see reduction in homicides but there was a 34% rate action and nonfatal shootings. for those results for gun violence are the primary outcome for our if i wish we want to see the program did indeed change the social norms about using gun violence to settle a dispute. we wanted to test the theory behind the program so we undertook an anonymous thestreet survey street survey of young men and mcelderry park and the similar neighborhood that didn't get the program. our survey, on our survey the young men indicated how likely they would be to use a gun in different scenarios that are considered common sparks for gun incidents and we found that in mcelderry park in the safe streets neighborhood, the young men were four times more like you to express little or no support for using a gun after we controlled control for other factors. so overall we found that this model can be replicated effectively and can lead to very impressive reductions in shootings but it's important that the model be implemented with high fidelity. there was also evidence towards that these change social norms about violence so that is the short and sweet evaluation and i would be happy to take any questions later. [applause] >> thank you jennifer. next up is mayor mitch landrieu. >> thank you for your leadership on this issue. i have enjoyed working with you on cities united. i want to just say a couple of things. we tend to get in these meetings and the language gets a bad antiseptic so i'm going to change that for a moment if you don't mind. .. ask yourself what it means. what it means is young black men are being slaughtered on the streets of america. that's what that means. now, some people will think that is a little bit too harsh, so let me prove my point to you. my city, the city of new orleans, for example, has about 360,000 people. we had 109 and merge last year which puts our per-capita murder rate at ten times the national average. we have the worst problem. as it relates to murder. there is a distinction between violence and murder. from a public health perspective perspective we ought to see it that way. very similar to those that we see in philadelphia and new york, chicago, baltimore, everywhere else. in certain neighborhoods in our cities you have young men being killed that sometimes 100 times the rate of the national average this is a national epidemic. it is not okay, and we have to state that. the lives of young african-american men are really important. we have to do something to stop the carnage on the streets of america. there is a school in new orleans where there were five young men that coincidently went to the school. they had killed coincidently within four or five months of each other. they were not related from what we could tell, but we ran the numbers. it was more likely for a kid that went to this as cool to get killed and a soldier in afghanistan protecting our freedom. those are catastrophic numbers. they cried out to us as a nation to fix. the first thing we have to do is recognize that. one of the things that we have been struggling about is what makes people stand up, what makes people stop. and so on going to say two things that might upset you. that's why we're here to do. first of all, mayor mike has said the number of different times, the ku. >> klan killed 200 african-american man on the streets of america their ordeal to pay . the world stop moving. i mean, the sun would stop shining. all the sudden we would not be talking. we would have a serious talk. the other day my wife was listening to tom joyner. and there was an african-american female columnist on talking about a report that she read from evidently a caucasian border who blocks for russell simmons. that will test your head up a little bit. he was talking about chicago. this guy who was a caucasian said it 53 when people got shot in chicago over the weekend the president was stop what he's doing, call at the national guard. so basically what you have is a little disconnect. if you don't pay attention we're not going to pay attention. so it all gets down to it's not my fault. so here's the other thing that we all have to get our hands around. not everybody is to blame. we are all responsible. if we focus on problem, analyze it the right way i think we can solve the problem. if it's something that we don't think is a major problem, a national epidemic, important, priority, and don't put the resources, time, organization behind trying to understand it. in the city of new orleans, for example, ten times the national, we went back and looked at it. of course people say, you're not doing a good enough job. there something wrong with your police chief, something wrong about the way you come near. i agree with that. so we went back and looked at the data. we found was we went back as far as we could. 1979 to 1980. ronald reagan, jimmy carter, larry bird, alice cooper, way back when in the day we have had an average of 241 murders every year on and on and on. some years got better. some got worse. when you went back and look at the average was tells you this is a very deeply rooted problem that can only be dealt with from seeing it as a public health epidemic. so the cease-fire model is built on an idea that is exactly right. it is one of many, many tools that we have to love to get to the problem. unless we recognize it is deeply rooted in a lot of very serious things may not going to get. the doctor used the word transmissible, and i want to tell you a brief story. i'll stay within my time. last week in the city of new orleans there was a birthday party for nine year old boy taking place. thirty seconds from city hall and a residential neighborhood. three young men were driving down the street and saw somebody they have been looking for on this porch. they got out of their car. one of them took an ak-47 and spread the neighborhood. when he finished spring the neighborhood rihanna allen who was five, the cousin of the nine year-old to have heard gets blown out on the porch, the nine year-old got clubs here. a bullet traveled three blocks down the road and hit a mother of three young boys in the head and killed her instantly. now, we -- as you can imagine, a very dramatic event for everybody that saw that, that went through that, entire family the funeral was held and then we had in new orleans will recall a repass. everybody comes back to the house. we are sitting down. we have these things called metro ground. just having some with the family . walking toward me were two people that have recognized. as i walked up to him i recognized him. this man was the father of a young african-american boys who had witnessed the death of a two year-old three months earlier whose name was key era homes to get gunned down in the courtyard of the place where she lived for 20 other kids were. and then the lady next to him says, you don't remember me do you. no, remind me. i'm jeremy's mother. the 2-year-old it had been shot months before it got caught in the drive by. these two people talk about transmissible, work together. the son of the young african american new. so this'll boy himself saw and knew three people who were five for youngbear that cut killed. now, the transmission and complexity of that over a long time is something that we ought to all stop and say, we have to find a way to get into that and to stop that. we will not be able to do this, by the way, if the nation is not called to purpose on this issue. i do not want to hear from congress that they don't have enough money to do this. the new york times reported last week, if it was accurate, that the united states of america spend $8 billion nation building in standing up police departments in iraq in afghanistan. that may very well have been unnecessary expenditure, but it is hard for me to believe and to understand as the mayor of a major american city that if the point of that is to secure our homeland by helping their security forces be secured that we can find a way to bring that money full circle and partnership with federal, state and local government so we don't have to rely on wonderful people like that of robert johnson foundation to do for the people of america will we should do ourselves. the good part about this is if we identify it, call the mission to purpose, and say it is important to save the lives of young african-americans, we can. we know it is fixable, but it takes time to resources, money. i'm proud to tell you that we have cease-fire. it's a great model. the model works with you guys in baltimore and philadelphia. and what has gone on in chicago, really bright light spirit is one of many things, but we have to start with saying it is a national epidemic that we will not tolerate and do everything we can to fix. thank you very much. >> now you know why he's my partner. >> thank you very much. i am fired up and ready to go. well done. i just want to share a few things with you from our experience in fresno. as was mentioned, we are not implementing the ceasefire program that has been presented this morning in its entirety, but there are elements that we have been able to incorporate actually from all law enforcement perspective. of talk about that in a moment. i want to say that i am very compelled by the other elements that we are missing in fresno and very eager to see how we can rate those pieces. i am extremely encouraged by what i see happening in our community. people standing up and saying enough is enough. interestingly it is coming from moms and dads and grandparents. we have an organization in our community called the fresno st. that was brought together by seven african-american pastors who knew each other. this gets to the point of the epidemic. a particular family event, one of the pastors lost his grandson in an incident of violence. a similar situation as to that which the mayor described in a family gathering, rival gang members came upon the gathering and this past his grandson was lost. they were gathered for the funeral, the family was there grieving going through all the normal processes. they realize that there were running out of some ice and some help. so they sent to other grand kids down the street to the neighborhood store to get a few items of aggression store. and as both children were walking to the core stores one of them was gunned down as a result of gang violence and unintentional crossfire. some needless said this series f events sparked really what has become a community of revolution and transformation with many of the african american grandfathers' coming together saying, we cannot lose anymore. i had a mom and my office not long ago whose son was going through the criminal justice process and was involved in gang activity. she relate to me that all of the moms or friends. this particular rival gang situation, she could name all of these kids' moms and said, now our sons are killing each other. so i certainly share the passion that uc from these other terrific leaders and communities and understanding addressing this. what has been going on in fresno from a law enforcement perspective. this is an important element and i appreciate that it is not the focus and the system solution, but nonetheless it is extremely important that our law enforcement agencies are working in coordination with one another. not being a strategically deployed as they can be in an era of diminishing resources. we have to fix that problem. so we have been working with david kennedy out of the boston area cease-fire. we have begun to the line every level of law enforcement to target the ten percenters, those who are 10 percent of the people who are committing 90 percent of the violent acts in fresno. really, probably, many of the have heard this, but the signature feature of this particular program is the call-in where you invitees ten percenters to come in, usually held at churches and they hear from law enforcement at the local, state, federal level, but they also hear from former gang members, reformed gang members, trauma nurse or in the are dark and a spectrum of people who all send the same message which is violence must not. and it, the combined message, you have to stop. you know you will be locked away for many, many years. if you choose to stop there are a range of resources available to get you out of the lifestyle you're in now. after the law enforcement panel there is the record of service providers to come in and be with the individuals and connect them with services in an attempt to help them begin the process of exiting the gang activity they are involved in. so far they have been doing this for the last two years. 315 people called and. of those only five have recommitted of federal or violent act. so there has been a tremendous impact on at least sort of jarring people's attention. we have seen a tremendous reduction in violence. what i am inspired by this morning is the idea of raising up the interrupters. honestly i think this probably sounds like the hardest thing to implement, and i'm curious to hear from others on the panel how you go about finding people who can be effective in that capacity. what we experienced is that those suits -- it's difficult to find those with the credibility needed to relieve fill that function. those who are willing to almost upon admitting they're willing to do it become, you know, it's difficult to get the credibility that they need. i'm anxious to learn more about that peace and see that added in. i am also really curious about working with hospitals and finding out -- that is so clearly the right spot to intervene. you know, we typically have police officers all over the place. anticipation of retaliatory acts. we don't necessarily have the community response that goes along with that. i'm anxious to learn more about that. thank you. >> thank you. and we will hear from now jane. >> thank you very much. i want to thank both the mayor you have heard our of implementing the ceasefire chicago model. your new insight that reminds us that there are many different pathways year that we need to take to come together and solve this problem. so i just want to put forward the importance of using effective solutions to solve this problem of gun violence in american cities. now, you might wonder why the largest health care foundation in the united states really devoted all of you who are in pr offensive probably heard, brought to you by the robert wood johnson foundation, designed to improve health and health care for all americans. so you might wonder why we have an interest in reducing gun violence. that will be a fair question. we regard violence as a pressing public-health issue that strikes at the heart of the community and well-being of individuals, families, and whole communities. and ed disproportionately affect on low income communities and vulnerable populations. as you heard from everyone here, young men of our city, these are areas where the foundation has always placed a very special emphasis. so it goes without saying that gun violence, the toll of gun violence is very clear commander should not get ourselves about this happening just in one neighborhood, one city or four neighborhoods in a city. doesn't affect any of the rest of us. believe me, what happens to people in cities across america, rural communities across america, suburbs across america affects all of us, and we need to remember that whether we like to burn not we are all very deeply interconnected. clearly you have heard from gary and from others about the contagion of violence. we know from other work that we are doing around behavior and neuroscience and the evidence that is rapidly emerging around brains and brain science that this is an important issue. and it is no exaggeration to say that gun violence is an epidemic and one shooting leads to another. i assume that nothing commands your attention more than and needless homicide as the lead story in your morning paper when you go to read it weather on line or you actually still get the paper. it is also clear, and this is where the neuroscience comes in, that the physical and mental toll that takes place for people is not just among those two are directly affected were involved in acts of violence. in these neighborhoods and the mayor provided an excellent example, many examples of where people have been exposed to violence and how the chronic instability in the neighborhoods affect people's lives, and we know that when a child is exposed to violence that it has a very long lasting impact on their lives. and this is what in the parlance of the sciences called toxic stress. this toxic stress can wire or rewire a young child's brain such that they are far less likely to have healthy relationships, succeed in school, or be physically and emotionally healthy. and that creates greater risk for disease and disadvantaged. so the evidence is for how and why to present the epidemic of violence borne out by silence. so it is an approach. a public approach that seeks to interrupt the spread of violence, much in the same way as carey described we seek to interrupt the spread of infectious diseases. so at the risk of being redundant the foundation supports the cease-fire model to combat gun violence because it works. that was our hypothesis ten years ago when we began our invest in addition, and since then the foundation has committed nearly $10 million to develop, test, and spread the model and tell the stories the you're hearing today began to develop for them a business plan and strengthen the organizational capacity for replication. provide the technical assistance that is available to all of you across the country to help replicate this model. and we know that the technical assistance is bearing fruit because of the visions of mayors like those who are with us today . people, these mayors and others are open to different solutions, one set would sometimes have to be explained to a skeptical public. the opportunity in a community, it is a cost train through lost wages to the depressed housing values, low jobs creating investment and exceptionally high use of police and emergency room services. if you can stem the violence it opens the door to strengthening communities, to making unhealthy , and it strengthens them in ways that are fundamental to this health and vitality, investment and schools, businesses, jobs, housing, and someone. while we have committed significant amounts to the cease-fire model, the reality is that any philanthropic resource to tackle such a vast problem are entirely insufficient and it is unrealistic to think that we will support this work indefinitely. so other partners, including u.s. mayors, need to come on board based on the evidence and the track record and help spread a novel model that works. we can do this together. we don't want to wait any longer. we cannot afford to watch any longer. the payoff is enormous. if you have fewer shootings and killings to revitalize neighborhoods in a fundamentally healthier future for the people and communities you leave his division and it certainly is the goal. thank you very much. [applause] >> what a great, great panel. we want to thank all of our panelists for their presentations on this very important topic. we want to open the floor to the mayor's. a really brief note, certainly to recognize the work, we have in philadelphia shown that there is a movie called the interrupters. about two hours. a little less than two hours. we have had a number of showings it is very powerful, compelling, but also some very clearly tells a story about what is really going on on the streets. it was made in chicago, but quite frankly it could -- you could watch the movie, close your eyes and you could be in any city in the as its american. we have shown in the number of times and planned to show it during the course of next school year in a variety of places all across the city of philadelphia. so with that, if there are questions, comments, concerns, just raise your hands. >> a quick question, and i appreciate this model. we were talking. this model makes sense. we have seen it work in a lot of different instances, as he talked about earlier. if someone lit a cigarette in this room would freak out. we have changed the norm. one of the things they have stir with personally and professionally, some of this violent behavior in our streets, the psychological long-term psychological damage that has been done, particularly with african-american males. that is being played out by this violence. the question is how we begin to reverse that. once you get beyond making this non example warm and allow bill cosby for bringing that to bear on the latest incident be dealt with in baltimore the question i want to know is the next step? there is something psychological challenging when african-american boyer and the man can point again at a boy that looks like them and say it's okay to pose for granted to life. >> i will tell you, give you another statistic that will schedule a little bit. at least in new orleans 88 percent of young men actually know each other. >> we can add to that. not only do they more often times than not know each other, but on any given week on a monday you could have a person who is a perpetrator engage in some criminal activity. by friday that same person is a victim. most of the folks involved in criminal activity, violent crime in the 70 to 80 percent of range for both have previous criminal records, multiple arrests and are all what we would call in the game. so the overall majority of violent crime in most cities in america is committed by a relatively small group of people who are all to see each other around. when there are perks, the next victim, and in many instances some have been shot multiple times. through the windows of science and medicine this survive in this circumstance. so you get a sense sometimes that this criminal activity is going on. it's not random. these folks on of each other. this week is about something that happened two weeks ago with somebody else. brother, cousin, nephew, friend. whatever the case may be. they're all just chasing each other around. >> let me just remind anyone cannot if he could raise your hand, we will be here after the session. i will be here all day today. if i could connect with anyone here. in the context i want to really remind everyone, the business of transmissible has really correctly last on to and not a metaphor in more. i mean, the science of this is really solid. that is what the institute of medicine workshop really landed on. it really is infectious and we have fundamentally misdiagnosed this problem. this is a very important and essential concept that we have been mistreating because we have misdiagnosed it. we need the son in the effort of course, but my original diagnosis which was people did not care enough, there wasn't enough money in it, not the whole thing. it's really that we have really not been applying the right approaches. it feels good blocked. malaria was blocked forever. loudobbs@foxbusiness.com >> which we know more about than 10-15 years ago. actually, we need to know this. it's not consequences. they are not worried about the consequences. they are wiredded not to care. go out into the world and prepare because they are supposed to protect things and do things and save the world. what they care about is what their friends think. that's the way we are evolutionarily wired. furthermore, they need risk. they need risks to be normal, to feel normal. that's the normal way, not even the disregular so theay that we see this in terms of using the since for interrupting this is that this is really free stuff, and in order to reduce the trauma, we have to -- in order to reduce the effects of the trauma, one, we have to begin to reduce the trauma that's happening which means that we have to reduce the shootings as fast as we can which is what the interruption part does. point one, we got to interrupt the situation, and it's not just the long term method, but this method gets result when you use the model in the first 6-12 months, and point two, shift north. it's done sequentially, and then we have to slitly begin to put into place some kind of treatment. professionalized health care for people repeated by traumatized, and we're treating with the workers themself on how to help others manage. there's methods for that that we've talked about, but there are new interventions that we need to bring to scale, but we're really not being honest if we're just treating the trauma, not causing the problem and the other aggressive stuff going on. >> i just want to say one word about the trauma for the mayor of denver. there is a physician in philadelphia named john rich who also is a public health doctor who is working very hard on the issues of trauma op young men, and i would encourage you to take a look at his work. it's focused a lot on trauma informed care so how do you prevent the killing from happening, how do you begin to engage with the young men around these deep issues of trauma? i would also say that from the philanthropic community now, there is a huge surge interest and a lot of activity happening around the needs of addressing young men of color in this country. we are focusing on middle and high school young men of color. there are my colleagues at numerous foundations and cities across the country looking at this along the developmental spectrum, and it really has to not only deal with the terrible issue of violence, but it also really needs to go back and why removing kids in school, why not create pathways for success, and barriers and issues here. we're focused on the issue of violence, and it is big and powerful. we also have to remember that the solutions lie upstream with the business community, all of us have a stake in making the lives of our young people, whether they are young men of color or young women better, and so we have to think about in this situation as gary talks about as in big intersecting circles and work within the communities to gather up all of the organizations that are in one way or another coming at this problem from different points of view. >> just a couple of interruption, immediate interpretation, like stop the shooting right now. don't care what's going on, where you came from, where you're going, stop the shooting. that's interruption. transmission, when you -- she said when you get upstream on this thing, bring it home. a little girl's father was killed, and it's the same place we buried a 16-year-old boy killed thee months earlier. two days after, there was a free lunch program in the same church where, by the way, a lot of us have a lot of usd on the table in the summer because we have no place to feed the kids so we partnered up and they were in eating, and we are a table, i don't know, 22 5-year-olds, and i couldn't help but look at them and say where are you going to be? the kids who know each other, killing each other, all in the game, one of the great danger, and i hear this from everybody is, hey, i can't touch that. that's not me. those are thugs killing thugs. they were not always thugs. one day, they were that 5-year-old at that table in a church eating a free lunch going through a recreation program. on the issue of interruption, if we don't change what we do now and interrupt, what happens between 5-16 for the young men? they do the same thing. what's the upstream or downstream conditions that have to be changed so we do you want produce the same outcome that we have now. now, cease fire is like, you know, putting a plug in the dike, like, doing more than that, but right now, it's taking the kids there already and saying stop what you're doing. we have to get way down and way early and change the condition so we don't have that problem for those same kids ten years from now. >> two quick questions. mayor henderson from f. myers, florida. is the power point available? question two, in our city, we're having challenges with our witnesses getting a -- >> getting what? witnesses getting what? >> lockjaw. >> i understand. >> go to silence, lockjaw. that's a crude term, story. you get it. >> yeah, yeah. >> could you help us how you deal with this in your cities? appreciate that, thank you. >> sure. you know, there's been this, well, on the figure question, i'm sure that they would make this powerpoint available to everyone. in philadelphia, we certainly combat, don't call it lockjaw, but referred to as no snitching, and then witness intimidation, and we've had a couple bad situations, but in many instances, you know, folks, again, folks in many instances, all in the same neighborhood, everybody knows everybody, there's family, friends, friends. of friends, associates, all the rest that goes with it, and, you know, some of the issues then, somebody else, folks in the neighborhood know who did what. there's no bigamist ri -- big mystery here. all the folks talk. they couldn't keep their mouths shut if their lives depended on it, but they will not call the police because they don't want to deal with the system or the man whatever it may be. we deal with this ourselves. we're back to that. we have to cool that down immediately. often, literally starting at the hospital where the one who got shot, and the boys show up, okay, we going to get -- all kinds of language, not appropriate for the u.s. conference of mayors or c-span. >> or c-span. >> so, i mean, you really do have to chill that out immediately whether it's at the hospital, in thed neighbor, and all of the other components that go with it, and so that's where boots on the ground make a difference, and having people in the neighborhood who are prepared to stand up and step up, and that's what it's about. we do have, in many instances folks stepping forward. in philadelphia, we put our -- couple months ago, 100 most wanted folks up on the city's cable access channel and city's website, and within two weeks, 21 of the folks were either arrested, turned themselves in, or we got information on where they were. people really do want -- everybody wants a safe community ultimately. you have folks out there who are not, you know, engaged in the common amores we maybe, but we have to provide them an opportunity, and in some instances, sam thing the young people use, social media, texting, tip hotlines, anonymous opportunities to give information to get the stuff out so we can do our job, but i think the no snitching attitude is a major challenge in many, many places, but we have to give people a sense of hope in that they're protected and not subject to retaliation themselves. >> okay, thank you. >> sure, yeah. >> right here. >> yes, sir. then come right down here. there's a microphone for you. >> morning. i'm wayne hall, mayor of hempstead, new york. just a couple questions. on wednesday, i'm to meet with the national county da to try to implement cease fire, and what i want to know is how do you determine interruptions? how do you screen them for that? >> sorry, what? >> figure out who to interrupt -- >> people who work with you on the cease fire. >> in baltimore, it's people who, as mayor, wold -- would say have been in the game. choosing the right individuals. that's something -- that is out of my lane. you know, i know the work of it. i can explain it. i don't speak -- i wouldn't be speaking with any credibility. they need people to have been where they've been. that is the benefit of that is when you get that right person, you're able to get the results. the challenge is making sure that person's out of the game. >> right. completely. >> i want to answer this because there's so many mayors here. our experience, and in watching cities try to do this on their own, is that ordinarily, it's not so exactly likely that people are going to be selecting the right people op their own. we are -- we have a lot of experience in helping in this, and there's criteria for this, and there's research to be done in the neighborhood on this because you need to determine, that's what we talked about with the assessment, what is actually going on in this neighborhood right now? are there five groups or three groups? a bunch of cliques? random stuff? what's going on here. who do we need to hire to interact with the various groups or cliques or whatever? who knows them? then point by point by point, we have to go through an actual systematic process of determining who has that roladex and who has both his or her feet on this side of the line now, but not a toenail over there? and they are hungry to do the work. >> right. >> and they can do the work and so on so there's a whole -- and then they're not random. five interrupters in city w. no, it's a part of a control disease system supervised with monitoring and support and training. there's a whole training program i didn't get into for interrupters, for outreach workers to do persuasion, do behavior change, do norm change. we're seeing people like hiring interrupters. it just means -- okay, hire a chest surgeon. no. they need to be the right person and properly trained. >> we should get in touch with june? >> yeah. [laughter] >> that ends up being the bottom line. >> a few other mayors back there. >> okay. >> good morning, i'm from the city of west palm botch mayor. talk to us about the implementation process, where to start, how long it takes, and, you know, a little more specifics about that. >> why don't we get mayor rollins some time. >> i think it's in the presentation. it was really a blue print for the way we handled it. first, identify the areas. we do this all of the time with our city step process. we identify where we have neighborhoods that have historic violence, historically been violence. identify those, you know, intense dots on the map, and after you do that, then you have to make sure that in those areas and one of the areas that we first talked about, i mean there was a lot of violence, but also strong community groups there that wanted different so you have to -- you have to have all of those things. you have to have, you know, the unfortunate part, the violence, and then you have to have that community group able to do something and wants to do something in the fight with you, and then you can layer on the work of identifying the potential interrupters, and, you know, i would encourage anyone that is interested to learn from the mistakes of other cities which is, you know, you can't -- it's not something you can -- you can't take the powerpoint and do it. you need to work with a group to make sure that you are sticking to the model. the same way we were talking about a public health issue, the same way you can't listen to a lecture from a doctor and diagnose people. you have to work with the professionals that develop the program to get results you want, and it's only through, you know, strict adherence to the model that we're getting the results, and you have to figure out in your city how you can get that strict adherence. you know, because we try different ways, and then, you know, it's the work with the health department as the lead in the cease fire, safe street, you know, that was able to make sure we are sticking with the model. >> we're going to -- i'm going to take a couple questions. we're a little over our time, but this is obviously a very serious discussion, and then i know there's other activities going on. take a little point of privilege. i want to follow-up on something that mayor mitchell andrew referenced, and he and i and a number of other mayors looking at this from a national perspective, and so i know a lot of folks are taking notes. you mite want to take this down. now, on september 11th, 2001 in new york, washington, and in a field in pennsylvania, 2977 people were killed. horrific attack on the united states of america, and it's been an incredible response to that. last year, there were 5 # 15 # homicides in new york city. 63 in boston. 108 in washington, d.c.. 19 # 6 in obama. 324 in philadelphia. 298 in los angeles. 199 in new orleans. 433 in chicago. 87 in atlanta. 344 in detroit. 91 in newark. 198 in houston. 147 in memphis. the top five cities in the united states of america plus eight others. don't bother doing the math. it was 2981 in 13 cities last year. even though crime has generally been going down, if you want to know how many people in those 13 cities total were killed over the last ten years, of course, multiply by ten. now, what happened as a result of 9/11? we created -- government created a cabinet level position, the secretary of homeland security. unless you are from orlando, every one of you had an experience with the tsa, transportation security administration, almost had to take your clothes off to get an airplane. that's fine. everybody's safe. as long as you don't miss your flight, it's cool. i sat in a speech inial has tee with -- tailtallahassee with mayor john marks. the tsa, the transportation security administration, in the united states of america, on our streets, what we need is the wasa. this is the walking around security administration. [laughter] we need to be as safe in our cities on our streets as we want to be flying anywhere in the united states or around the world. we changed security procedures for how you fly in the world as a result of that horrific incident on one day in the united states of america. yet, last year, in 13 cities, more people were killed than were killed on one day in that horrific attack. i want to be safe flying. i want to be safe walking. that's what we need to focus on. next question. >> amen to that. yes, sir? >> scott eisenhower. i appreciate your thoughts on the issue and on the program. my question for you is with a bit of a statement ahead of that. unfortunately, for all of us violence crime is not just a big city issue, but an every city issue. >> absolutely. >> for communities of less than 50,000, can this program work? >> we are working with some smaller communities including communities in illinois. >> i mean, we -- it works best when there is a serious problem, and that's when it is most effective and should be used. >> yeah. last question. yes, ma'am? >> good morning, i'm from gary, indiana, and i know my team was talking with your team, and there's a lot of similarities, and i've been involved with the drug court, and there's similarities in terms of changing the norm and other aspects of the cease fire movement. my question is in terms of your colleagues and the medical field, a lot of the movement in the drug analysis in terms of drug treatment -- drug addiction as a disease came as a result of the medical world. is that -- are you having that same success among your colleagues, among the physicians to look at violence as a public health issue? because i think that the more of them that do, the more success we'll have in this area, and then my other question is how involved is the faith community in terms of getting involved in the cease fire initiatives that are underway? i heard in fresno they actually started your program, but how involved is the faith community in terms of what's happening with cease fire safe street? >> i'll just take the first part of this one. i'm glad you're here, and we hope to be working with you and hope to be and aware of the programs there. the health community needs to be much more involved. the health directors, public health departments need to begin to step up. they have not known, i think, until this model that there was a place for them on the serious violence. in other words, by convention they've left that to others who are, you know, controlling the resources in this issue, but they have been involved in work related to younger children and school bullying and thingses like that. there is a place for them now, and we need the health directors and the health departments of your cities to begin to step up as baltimore has to again to and others to take a very active role here because not only is there a place for them, but the face of this issue needs to change to a health matter so that the more, in a way, positive, helpful, supportive, effective treatments can be applied or at least added to what else is there. >> [inaudible] >> yeah. it's been really a key component of what we've been doing in fresno, and we've got networks of churches throughout the city that organized themselves to kind of cover each geography of the city with various faith-based organizations. we have groups as well as different, you know, different deno , -- denominations and religions coming together. we have a street team doing community prevention and outreach work for us. our police department initiated a partnership in the really historically most dangerous part of the city in southwest fresno. we got 50 different faith based non-profits that meet every week with the police department and stage a range of programs and activities and outreach year round starting in southwest fresno, and now they are moving to southeast and central fresno, and, you know, they are very small churches. it doesn't have to be megachurchs deciding this is the main focus. these are most churches that are small. as they come together, they are very, very impactful, and they have the relationships needed with the grandmas and grandpas and the guardians and others involved in the lives of the people we're trying to impact. >> i am forgetting the serious signal -- [laughter] this has been a most engaging conversation. i want to thank the panelists, and i also want to mention to the mayors and others that it is important to have boots on the grounds, but as mayors, we have to continue to advocate for and push for support from our federal partners, our good friend, shannon, in the back from the cops office, the cops program, important, all across the united states of america, and so certainly see her and make sure that we have our voices heard as mayors and community leaders with regard to law enforcement, but our police departments as good as any of them are cannot be and will not be the only answer to the particular challenge. it is a community based problem and community based solutions, and the answers from gary and jennifer and others are, again, on the front lines of making america the safe place in our cities and the safe places to be. let's give our panelists a big round of applause. [applause] >> thank you. thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> the republican national convention meets in tampa, florida in ten days. >> i started as a copy boy for the "new york times," in the training program after the army for the "wall street journal". >> washington post columnist talks about various jobs as a journalist, views on extravagant u.s. spending overseas, and his criticism of the defense department's budgets. >> build a facility with 40 people. if you spent $4 million on an elementary school, somebody would raise questions. >> more with the columnist sunday night at 8 on c-span's "q&a." >> together let's make sure that our prosperity enriches not just a few, but all working families. let's up vest in health care, education, a secure retirement, and middle class tax cuts. i'm happy the stock market boomed and so many new businesses and enterprises have done well. this country is richer and stronger, but my focus is on working families, people trying to make house payments, car payments, working overtime to save for college and do right for their kids. >> the last time the taxes were this high as a percentage of the economy, there was a good reason. we were fighting world war ii. today, our high taxes fund a surplus. some say that growing federal surplus means washington has more money to spend. they've got to backwards. the surplus is not the government's money. the surplus is the people's money. [cheers and applause] c-span aired every minute of every convention since 1984. we're in the count down to this year's convention. watch live coverage every minute of the republican and democratic national conventions live on c-span, c-span radio, and streamed online at c-span.org starting monday, august 27th. >> senior executives from the nation's largest defense contractors took part in the aspen institute security forum. representatives from boeing and martin discuss the private sector's role in homeland security. .. that would also like to answer a question of bill mudd who was here last night which was, why the heck is target here? except bill did not say heck. that is a fair question. after all, we sell all that cool stuff for your household and your family come the stuff you didn't know you needed until you came into the store. we don't self-defense products or security services. a little earlier my friend and colleague brad brekke had a pretty good start on the answer is he commented about target public and private partnerships with law enforcement for the purpose of addressing terrorism and other threats to the community. that is a good start and an answer. it a more self-serving motivation might eat that better security can benefit our business operations as well. let me give you an example. as the second-largest importer in the united states, target worked with u.s. customs is one of the founding members of the customs trade partnership against terrorism or ct path to improved tort security. the results, businesses take more responsibility to secure our cargo against terrorism and the government can then provide more efficient and timely customs inspections. everybody wins except the bad guys. but the better answer goes back to brad's point, that there is nothing more important in protecting our more than 365,000 team members and other members of the public. that is a critical part of the target mission and that is why we employ talented security professionals like brad and his team and then share so much of their time and talent with the community. unfortunately, the recent violence in aurora the mines -- reminds us once again of the importance of this mission. i'm sad to say that one of our key members was killed and two of them critically injured and that senseless tragedy. for all of the survivors are discussion today feels especially timely and relevant and meaningful. we have target are truly honored to be part of the security forum. thank you, walter. and now to talk about how the private sector is continuing to innovate in the security space, please join me in welcoming our panel is. we with us. buswell president and ceo of morpho detection, thomas grumbly vice president of several government programs in washington operations of lockheed-martin. john harris to second president of subby technical services company, roger krone at knowing and wesley rhodes deputy chief technology officer, ibm federal. and the moderator of the panel, national security correspondent for "the wall street journal," adam and his. please join me in welcoming adam and our other panelists. [applause] >> thank you very much. when it comes to, as you well no, over the last 10 years has been tremendous intimation that is change the way homeland security has done and how warfighters conduct their efforts in afghanistan where you have drones that are sapping militants and you have tremendous surveillance technology that is used to charge the soil to see if there has been any disturbances that could point to ieds. the men who are up here do for the cia and dod what q did for james bond. they develop the gadgets that made this possible. given the trends that we have seen in the wars in iraq and afghanistan i thought we would start with an issue of big data, which is the cnn afghanistan and iraq initially as general petraeus was collecting -- they could collect, intercept sms's and all this information that pass passed by phone and from that able to pinpoint the location of militants. it has become so sophisticated by the end of the campaign in iraq that if they militants tossed his phone taste on a pattern of phonecalls, they were able to trace likely where that's militant, was now using and pick up his or her trail. in afghanistan in the last few years, this is the same technology that is being used in ways that is mind-blowing. it's to the point where in a pillage they would collect data on the price of potatoes, you know the traffic flows in a community in addition to sms and he brings out altogether and you are getting close to what is referred to as the holy grail of being able to almost predict what's going to happen next so these are the ultimate correlation tools. so all of these companies here out of hand in this, and i thought we would start off by maybe discussing what you guys are doing in this arena and what the trends are so i don't know who wants to start. >> you are looking down here so i guess i will start. what are the trends? you all heard the term big data. big data is going to get bigger and bigger and bigger. one of the values of big data is it allows us to ingest or receive this vast amount of detailed records, vast amount. and i think one of the biggest benefits that we get out of big data analysis is that ability to predict, that ability to understand the world around us but also allows us to eliminate the process we have been using all this time. we can't measure a prc until he find out something that we can measure and we draw a correlation or a relationship to the things that we can't measure and then that is the way that we guide and understand how things are going. can't measure nutrition so i look at other indications of nutrition, height and weight and so forth but what big data does is allows us to understand the world and its complexities, understand exactly how it really is. so that necessitates a lot of technology to receive, to sort, to understand, to correlate. a lot of statistics though that makes our nation safer and also enables us to do it at a much lower cost. >> roger i was hoping to ask you what is possible? in the last -- i remember going out to afghanistan two years ago and there was a lot of skepticism about the now being able to crunch all this and actually spit out results with tells you there is a higher chance of insurgent activity in this one area. what is the last quantum leap forward in the last few years? >> i was thinking about that and i really think a good proxy is this is our third year the security forum here at aspen and kind of reflect on what the audience was doing two years ago versus frankly and i will admit it, what i have been doing for the last two days. so, i have in order of magnitude more compute power at my place. i am multitasking. i am out on apps so we moved the data closer to the tactical edge. the equipment that i have two years ago, three years ago, i probably had an early version of a blackberry and today they could have an ipad or an iphone filled with apps and maybe one of the most remarkable things is, so there is a speaker appear that makes the comment that somebody has picked that up either streaming or in the audience, has posted it on a blog, and it is put on politico and we are over there at the table reading the quote of the speaker within maybe 30 seconds after the statement is actually made. so we have significantly reduce what we call latency which is the relevancy at how fast we can take the data that is collected, turned again to information and then push it out to the tactical edge where the user is. think of us all as being users. they can then create an action based upon that intelligence and do something to provide security. >> how does this work in the field? like you know, with all the collection that is going on, is it an algorithm that is used to determine what's going to happen for white might happen in an area and how is this information synthesized in a way that is usable to a warfighter out in the field? speak you want me to answer that or do you want john to? >> there are a number of algorithms and lots of decision trees and all of those things are done in microseconds. it allows people to get kind of that real-time data and information to make informed decisions at the local level. i think is roger mentioned, it's really no different for example then our ability or for example amazons ability to make predictions around what your next purchase is going to be. what google thinks you are going to want to look at the next time you go on line. so while we are doing is taking that same kind of approach with respect to data analysis, predictions, inputs, decision trees and give people information that is usable and then the next element is really then parsing that information out to the edge and pushing it to the edge so that any number of people can use it in an effective and timely manner, to make informed decisions about whatever mission they might have. >> yeah, i am from lockheed-martin, the large -- world's largest security corp. and i wanted to take a little bit different of the attack and to say most of you most of whom are customers in many respects, we do what you want us to do both with the taxpayers money as well as with their own research and development where we spend nearly a billion dollars a year of our own funds. we are the people who do the can and you are the people who do this should. what happens with this big data issue is that our ability to process data, driven by the incredible increases in computing power that writer alluded to, we are going to create more and more issues for those of you who are in the audience that are decision-makers about how much information do you need? how far up the curve do you need to be for surveillance purposes, for kinetic purposes. we are very familiar with delivering kinetic energy at the right spot, but we recognize that as the big data problem gets bigger, some of the issues that we are talking about yesterday are actually run around like for example general alexander, of under what circumstances can you use all the data that you have? we will become greater and greater. said the intersection between technology and policy will become closer and closer but fundamentally, we are the people -- you tell us what you want and we tried them make it for you. >> in a place like afghanistan and iraqi don't have any constraints like a petri dish. you are experimenting with your systems, right? >> it's not true that we don't have -- as my colleagues would say there are plenty of rules of engagement. there are plenty of opportunities to you know two things technologically that we can do but that we don't do because you know our military or our partners in the partner governments don't want to. but yeah it is an opportunity and we have in fact is i'm sure we will talk about, developed the things with the right kind of modifications to make them less costly can be used here on that homeland security process process as well. >> we don't make the policy decisions but i think one of the core responsibilities in the role of industries to take the time to listen to the customer's challenge is an figure out how could we possibly answer that question? and it might be within the confines of the companies here. it might be within the confines of of small business who has a great idea and a different approach or perspective to solving problems and it might be outside the defense marketplace like in a commercial marketplace so our challenge and our charter is really to figure out how to solve the problem and ours is not to make determinations with respect to policy. ours is figuring out the possibility of what could you possibly do given the challenges you have? >> one thing to note, it used to be in times past the federal government was unique. we did all kinds of technology unique to their problems and we still do that but not near to the degree that we did before. now you have multinational corporations, large reparations, global corporations that have got the same amount of security problems. they have got the same strengths. they have got the same worries, problems and the amount of data that they need to deal with is also very massive so one thing you see is that the amount of technology that we create to then handle the problems that our commercial customers are asking us about directly relates to federal. some of the things we do in federal directly relate to the same problems. may be different data, and perhaps different algorithms for the same problems we have an commercial. i think a good indicator that his target being here. if jim alexander were here he might be very proud of that because they think that begins to show more and more that public/private relationship. >> so what we are doing in afghanistan compared to what amazon is doing in terms of telling me what book i'm going to buy next. are they pretty much comparable? i assume and i would think that it would have -- amazon does not have drones and they don't have, at least not yet and they don't have those capabilities. >> you can certainly do a laser like focus on customer needs. >> i don't know about the drum thing. [laughter] [inaudible] >> i do think, i guess i differ a little bit in these perspective. i think the federal environment is still different. the kinds of rule sets that govern the federal environment and the kind of challenges that some of our colleagues and even those in the audience halfway or, when they asked us to do something or when they want to pull the trigger it has to be writer people died. that is a different kind of a problem, not from a data analysis perspective but i think in terms of how you organize the data, how you deliver it to your customers whether they be defense customers are homeland security or treasury. there is still a difference in that and i think there is no shame in recognizing it. >> roger, how close do you think we are to this holy grail of literally being able to take this information in a place like afghanistan where you don't have as many constraints and produce results, actionable results being able to predict finding the needle in the haystack, preventing an attack based on what you're collecting? >> i think david sanger when he was a pair talking about the holy grail being predictive analytics. the monty python movie the holy grail was something you always seek but basically never achieve. we are much better than we have been. we have terrific software tools. of that haystack, we can now analyze a larger percentage of the haystack. this coming together of moore's law and metcalfe's law has allowed us to attack what used to be rules of physics and generate information on the data that we never could before. the ideas to think about kind of the evolution and the intel world to go back to the cuban missile crisis. we were determined that there was something there but that is about it. we didn't have a lot of information about where it came from and what the intentions were. [inaudible] so we have moved beyond that because we now can measure over time. became look at trends. we can start to draw -- i think the last panel talks about a ship. there is a ship somewhere where it's not supposed to be. that is valuable but if you knew where it was yesterday and you knew where it was two weeks ago and oh by the way if you have access and you knew who the skipper was in the ownership waa and figure out there's an llc based in the cayman islands and now you can start to build a picture. from that picture we are talking about analyst support. we provide software capabilities to the analyst said the analyst can now spend less time searching the data. we use machines for that. and more time doing what they do well which is the human mind to recognize and synthesize and understand the intentions of that rogue ship that is someplace where it is not supposed to be or a piece of data, a change in pattern on a road near fallujah that wasn't there yesterday. we are so much better now than we were say the beginning of the iraq war but there is still a lot of work to do. both big companies and little companies are continuing to develop capability so we can do this in an automatic way. >> it i was going to shift now maybe to discuss the innovation to have seen in the war zones where you know the looser controls on this and then you try to bring it home to the u.s. either homeland security or for that matter you know border security specifically at the airport and you know there are all these constraints, government puts all these rules about what data can be shared and what can't be shared. you have prices here that you don't have. i thought maybe brad could -- >> i think my company is a little bit different than the rest of these just because you have not heard of my company but we make the explosive detection systems that was talked about this morning. both for the checked baggage and for the explosives and narcotics tracing equipment that does the secondary type of screening. it occurred to me the discussion this morning and we won't go into the policy discussions because we set up several times. we are about what can we do and not what should we do and tom is right that the nexus between those is going to become closer and closer in that you know, charlie allen sort of chuckled over the date metric advantage discussion but fundamentally what is our semester get manitoba the terrorist? it's her ability to collect and analyze tremendous amounts of data and taking that data to interdict when they need to and part of the interdiction can be screening went to have identified as high-risk people and talking about the risk-based screening. so from my perspective, we can add either seed that battle space to the enemy or figure out a way to work through the privacy and the other issues and this goes to the mature discussion that general hayden called for yesterday. let me talk a little bit, once you identify those people what do you do then? i think you know you have got a very level to take the aviation security example because that is the one that i'm most familiar with. they are my largest single customer of course. we have to give them the ability to do the dynamic things even within the screening process so often and technologies that given the individual are given a set of parameters around those individuals, that they can adjust their screening processes to fit it and it can be what flight are they getting on, where did they come from before and it can be in the any number of things in there are things we obviously use today within a certain period of time before the flight takes off, typically subject to additional measures. so what are the various levels of screening that the technology can provide once you have used the data in an appropriate fashion to identify these individuals and i think that is part of the obligation that we have to the government as well. it's not just a you tell us what you need because i can go to tsa and say what do you want and they will say what have you got? so it's a partnership and we have to work together on developing the technologies. >> let's pick up on what brad said and by the way we work directly with them on fingerprint technology. but you know, i think the issue of taking technology that we pushed out over the last 10 years and bringing it back here to the state for security purposes is not just a question of whether we have technology available nor is it only a question of regulatory constraints and things like that. there is a major issue of cost that is involved that we haven't really grappled with yet. for example we have these are system threats detectors. they are at work in afghanistan today to try to protect our troops. they would work very well at the southern or northern borders in conjunction with other technologies to try to improve our ability but, the supply chain and the o&m sales that come with that kind of technology which the military has sort of designed and organized to deal with, that is not the case for example at the department of homeland security at the moment so we have to figure out if -- it's our job to figure out with them how to price it, how to make sure we can deliver it and that it's constrained and i was told not to talk about sequestration. how one would actually go about making that happen and i think that is a unique challenge. to same thing with a lot of the cyberissues that are there. we can do an enormous amount of things in these war zones where we have been constrained but tried to price them for example so that corporations like target can actually use them to protect their data. it is no easy question. we are doing that now. we are experimenting with it, so the marketplace, besides what people are willing to present. >> and so i would say to answer your question, can you we applied technologies? absolutely. it's a matter of figuring out what are those elements that are necessary to meet the needs here, which i would argue it's significantly different than the challenge in theater. so as was just mentioned it is about is taking, distilling those elements that are core to this mission and figuring out what the actual answer is to this requirement. let's not try to fit a square peg in a round hole. let's take lets take the time as an industry to actually focus on our customers and listen to what the specific needs are and come up with a solution. elements from the military youth commercial developments and come up with the solutions that do meet both the performance and price requirement for a marketplace that is much different where we have all done our part to help our customers be successful. and that is the challenge. >> one other aspect of that issue, an issue that would concern my company a lot and i'm sure concerns every of the company as you can imagine and that is that legal environment. you take that technology and apply it here. guess you can, you bet you. it was a very lofty comment. try to minimize the trafficking of children on the internet. do we have have the technology that can do that? yes. do it the people at the capabilities to do that, that can apply that technology appropriately? yes. but the legal environment. there were her i would say 30 suggestions on how to attack the problem end of those 30 by my count 25 or a legal because some of the data would be stored and what kind of data from different parts of the country. not only in the u.s. but overseas and there were issues about showing that data. anyway one competitive issue is taking the technology that we have and then allowing it to come back so they can be applied to our concerns are to our other security concerns. and doing it anyway where commercial companies, all of us, are putting ourselves at risk of bankruptcy going out of existence, the corporate example of just because we helped, just because we put that in. i believe a key issue at here is taking the legal environment, bringing it up today, bolding and all the ramifications for data-sharing, understanding those are the laws of the other countries have but bringing it to a point where we can apply to our own national security as well as their own competitive advantage. don't forget there is national security from the standpoint of we can protect ourselves physically. there's a national security standpoint that our companies are being enriched through all the discussions we had last week, excuse me, yesterday about how our corporate secrets are being stolen and taking away our ability to have profit. >> now brad was formerly at dhs and i was hoping you could talk a little bit about your contacts with the home office in britain. >> i will talk about it a little bit but one of the things that we looked at when i was that dhs in technology with this idea of what kind of information can you gather and not setting aside for a minute whether you should or not a but what could you gather and what could you put together in a variety of applications so are you looking at normal behavior in a shopping mall for example and the topic came up earlier about casing the place for a terrorist attack next tuesday. even the profile of a normal air traveler, how far in advance do they make their reservation and do they buy tickets on line, did they take mass transportation to the airport? those sorts of things, not caring who that person is but what is the behavior around that individual and are they behaving normally? are they behaving like a normal passenger would to develop the idea of a normal, normal individual and then you can start looking for people who are behaving outside of that normal. that is one of the inputs to the risk-based, essential input to the risk-based screening algorithm and you know i think at the end of the day, you know i draw the analogy for privacy purposes of a police officer driving down the road seeing somebody swerving and they don't care whether that person, what their race or the ethnicity of that person is. they are behaving as though they may be intoxicated so that draws the attention and it has never made sense to me and the risk-based screening is perfect. it never made sense to me that poor cfo at the checkpoint has to treat everyone as though they are a terrorist and have to analyze every piece of equipment that comes through the x-ray machine as though something a terrorist could be carrying with them. we know that is not true so how much of that hate can you take off for the haystacks of those individuals can focus on the people they should be focusing on and that is sort of the idea around that concept. >> i know in the case of the cia when it conducts drone strikes under the terms signature strikes where they don't actually know who the individual individualist but again it's a pattern of life. they are looking at a persons pattern, where they are going in based on that even if they don't know who the person is in don't identify the person at any point, based on that information they will decide to take a strike so it's similar, sounds at a similar type of formula. roger, i just wanted to ask since we are talking about what they can do in london, he saw what happened in colorado. we are talking about something that can be done and whether or not it should be done. the alleged shooter in this case was on line buying things that he had probably never bought before. in the realm of possible how hard would it have been if there was the legal authority to do it, to too flied that individual before the attack took place? >> there are two parts to the answer. one is, amazon, right, and if he had bought a .30-06 on amazon, msn would have said people who bought .30-06's would have bought olive so clearly the technology is there. we see it every day. i get suggestions on amazon on what i'm supposed to be reading all the time so that data the data is there somewhere. it's then high low databases. it is protected by any number of laws at the state and federal level so it certainly is possible. your policy issue is really not the realm of contractors. it's not what we do, but if the other people in the audience and the other people on the dais here can create a regulatory environment of technology gets to be pretty straight forward and we don't need to invent a lot, especially to be able to correlate credit card purchases and things. that is pretty simple and we know where that data is. we can swipe a credit card and we know where that goes. that is really not our job. our job is to say it's clearly impossible within the homeland. to protect the country against all enemies foreign and domestic and we had a discussion about the president and his role but the law does not allow everything that could be done to be done. i think our role in the industry is to continue to let our customers know what the impossible is an sort through the regulatory and policy issues. >> you guys all operate in other countries where there are different frameworks and guidelines for this sort of thing. we heard from the home office i don't think that got off the ground, that project. do we more -- do more and other countries? >> as far as lockheed is concerned, because the u.s. customer is so important to us, the u.s. government customer we would not do things overseas that would be contrary to the laws of the united states. even if the other country permitted it. so we are constantly whether it comes to selling what it is that we make where there is an elaborate process for doing that, whether it comes to how we deal with corporations or groups in other countries. we are governed by u.s. law and that is the standard. for us, i mean that as a policy called by our ceo and our board that we have had for a long time and we think it's the correct one. >> is venture across-the-board for how does that work for your company? >> there are all sorts of rules and regulations, itar for example. >> if you are operating in britain and the government is contracting for its own homeland security, you would not be able to use the collection that a british national company would be able to do, is that right? >> i think you are asking him. [laughter] >> anything that we do outside the united states has to be with the blessing of the united states government. all of those systems we develop our primarily subject to itar regulations and we comply with them. without exception. >> you let's say that it was normal that in one society you -- to say that is the way you do business there. we are not going to work like that so we adhere to the cultures and the laws and the rules. our company is very conservative. >> itar, spca, that is the way we do business, it is one-way, ethics and integrity in everything we do, comply with the rules and regulations without exception. that serves us well and i know it serves my companions here and that is an approach that is worked for us and we will continue to do that and make sure that we have all the processes within organization and with the suppliers that we have such that they understand those rules and they understand that is our way of doing business and there's no question with respect to challenging that. and that is the way we work. >> one final question and then we will open it up to questions from the audience. just as a hypothetical, imagine that i am the defense department. we received intelligence that in a country in africa, the northern half desert is being in -- invested with al qaeda. the u.s. government has believed their internet cafés and people are communicating. there is some communication going on. the u.s. government is contemplating kinetic activity there and before they do that they want to find out what is actually happening in this area. what do you guys do when a request like that happens regardless of whether there is a contract? [inaudible] regardless of whether there is an operating contract that might cover it, how do you respond to your request? would you do to give this awareness? >> the question is how do i get situational awareness and that kind of environment? that is pretty easy. if it's digital that can be captured. if it's not behind a door or behind a row of it is easily observable. if it is inside there are others that the government has that many of these folks make that can give you information there so the question really is, once i have all this rich information that comes from that environment there are a variety of different means that we can acquire it, what do we do with it so that it can make sense? now, one of the directions that not only commercial customers are going to show that we all have some of the same concerns. there are always some things you need to federal and corporations are not going to let loans go but when we talk about security in that situational awareness with the same kinds of issues. they need to get the information correlated and figure out what it is so you have to put all that stuff into context. what we would do is gather the data and run all the mathematics and algorithms in all the technologies we have got to make sense out of that and put it into context and serve it up to the division makers a very good, accurate map of what is going on at home. generally that is how everyone would attack it. >> just to push it a little farther. we have experiences where you know the deputy secretary of defense is called our ceo and said, we have got a really bad situation in afghanistan. we need your help. we don't have, we seem to have contracts to cover everything. we don't have a contract that actually covers this particular thing. will you help us? answer, yes, we will. they are our best customer. that doesn't mean that we want that corporation. but within reason, we will take on that task on their own nickel and expect to get it back later. now, one of the issues that all of this has is, so the deputy secretary of defense says will you do it in their ceo says yes and the next day the systems are beginning to be delivered. they are delivered in two years later the contract officer says to us, who told you to do that? i am supposed to be the one who tells you to do that. there are all these kinds of issues that are meddlesome and things like that but to the extent that we can be partners with the united united states government and to the extent that we trust that the officers who left put up their right hand and said that they are going to protect the nation, we believe that they are operating within cover of the loss, so we have will go a long way. i can imagine things they would ask us to do that we would not do. but those would be in very extreme situations. >> john, you mentioned the government giving you a very short amount of time to shoot down -- to come up with a way to shoot down a satellite. is it possible? how much time do they usually give you for this, and -- >> so this is the way i will explain it. this is the environment we are in. it significantly different than it h ever been in the 29 years i've been in the industry. when i first joined the industry we talked about development programs 10 or 15 years. this is an environment where decisions need to be made in days or hours or minutes, and so that need and that pace at which developments and systems need to be deployed has got to be much different. what i will tell you is that we are all basically in the process of changing how we do business, of looking at different parameters with respect to where the answers might live. it might live with one small business. it made light within the four corners of my company and it may lie within the capability of the great companies to my left and right. so what we have to do is be willing to question the status quo using different things and do so in a way that does not jeopardize the commission, gives the right solution at the right time and certainly it recognizes the financial constraints that we are all under. i'm here to tell you it's a different world. it is one where i think it's very dynamic, challenging, interesting and from my perspective, lots of fun. and so in and i think we have come up with something that keeps me here and is the solution that make sour company successful. that is what we are here for. the purpose of innovation is to figure out how to answer those questions and do so in a shorter cycle times and that is my story and i'm sticking to it. >> i would say also that it's even more difficult because the technology development timelines have been shortened. it is the demand cycle has shortened so we have to anticipate a lot more what the customers potential in need and a lot of that unfortunately comes out of the headline and we have got to be ready for the next event before that event happens and offer those solutions. we were talking this morning about the implanted bombs so morpho detection started working on those technologies. there is an answer available when we needed. >> what made you guys go in that direction with a totally different application, but the science was we felt important for exposing detection primarily so we started developing the science because we thought it would be a next generation of products not for that purpose but reapplied. >> let's open it up to questions. there are microphones over here so why don't we start over here. >> he mike kelly from task. i am a little bit concerned about the topic here which is not innovation in the future but innovation and given the unarguably, the situation of the declining budgets, the government demanding more and unwilling to pay for it or willing to pay less. the demand for commercial off-the-shelf technology which drives the burden to you and the company i support in developing this, whereas in previous days we were fortunate enough to develop things in cooperation with the government before we got to that stage. what are you while doing and how are you while looking at it and what are your concerns about whether we are going to remain innovative and all of these fields? >> i can answer real quickly for us. i think it requires a much more focused look at the market and what you anticipate the market to be. it requires -- and the government is still willing -- there though there are still investments to be had with a higher risk of sort of thing that gets technology to the point where you know it is right for these commercial entities to take over the commercialization process, the commercialization part of it. that is part of the cost of doing business. i think the difficulty in the homeland security market is sort of the lumpy nature of the industry and that you know, jeremy asked earlier of mr. pistole what about the explosive detection machines that were installed in 2003? how is that going to happen? and i think one of the things that, one thing we have to look at is five years from now, what is that trend going today and are we investing in the right sorts of things now? it's not an easy thing to do and there are some risks involved with this but you know, it's our job. >> well a couple of things. first of all i would say lockheed-martin is an advanced technology company. that is what we do. we are constantly looking forward to do things that we can't afford to not be innovative. however as they say that, we spend as i said nearly $1 billion on research and development every year. there's no question that that's going to be under pressure as we go forward. for us, the biggest problem is less than number of dollars that we -- the problem is uncertain and the uncertainty that exists right now in the federal budget environment whether it is on the domestic side of the budget or on the defense side of the budget is absolutely intolerable for those of us who work in this business and as citizens and as policy make yours it's untenable as well. it's not a political statement to say we need more certainty about what the future is going to bring. our board of directors, our big board of directors, the united states congress, has a lot to say about that. >> i will distill it to three words. is an industry we are going to have to focus which is about figuring out what the real requirement is, spending time with her customers on the specific needs. the second word is leverage. trigger word the right invention arctics is so we can reuse it. leverage what currently exists and when it does not existexist, and of the. , put the new focus, the resources, the resources that we have, the resources the government has on those things where we do need to make new inventions and to solve problems. perhaps that have never been solved before. focus, negation and -- i think it's something that her our customers have been looking at and depending on us to do and i expect this to continue to do it and as things become ever more challenging. >> i think it's probably through at ibm and boeing. we are 50/50 commercial and we are not reimbursed for any of our r&d but we take tens of millions of dollars worth of market risk every day on programs like the 787 and we have got really comfortable with that model. we understand the financial returns, the technology risk and we have been successful in that market were over 100 years. what we are seeing in the government part is a bit of a conflict. so the development model in the government's market is, you can put your r&d in your overhead and there will be an allowable charge but with that comes oversight and guidelines so it was sort of an arm's length agreement that says we are going to help defray your r&d but without comes in accountability relative to the community system. and that served as really well. a lot of spread risk that what we see because of the budget budget constraints is the u.s. government and moving more towards the commercial model, which we are comfortable with that then we need to move completely more towards the commercial model so we need what i call inside versus oversight. for instance, we are developing a satellite for a commercial user. they have five technical people on their development team. on the government side it's an order of magnitude more so if we want to move versus commercial model for the government that let's just move faster towards more of a pure commercial model where we don't have to pay the overhead in the burden of the federal acquisition and some of the oversight that frees us up to do the invasion that we want to do. see my company, part of what your comment was, your concern about innovation. i'm not. we are in a constant state of innovation. the question is, where you point do you point out that innovation to and that is what has been articulated. we listen to our customers and with the problems are and we focus in a based on the problems that have the most need, that are most important to the nation and attracts them most commercial. all those things coming to bear. we are risk-based company. we manager risk and we understand we'll get up the morning and we take risk going to work and so forth. with a very complex model for understanding that, understanding how do i hedge my bet with that technology and so forth. what concerns me more than anything else is the fact that our a tenable advantage can be stolen so quickly so we invest a phenomenal amount of time and energy in protecting our intellectual property and securing our networks and all the things are going to that. having the situational awareness of what is going on. understand that the laws are different other places and we won't do things that other countries do, that some other countries do that give us a technical advantage perhaps. there are bad actors from all over the place. they come from any of the corner of the world than they can try and steal your intellectual property. that bothers me more than anything else because as far as understanding what it takes to keep ourselves innovative, i'm not concerned about that. as to what do i innovate, we let our customers decide that. tracking good workforce, educating them and all the other things that are necessary to keep the national advantage, programs are in place for that. i worry about watching billions and billions and billions of dollars of technical damage go to someone who did not invest a dime. that is what concerns me. >> maam, right here. >> diana negroponte from the brookings institution. the panel gives the impression you have only got one customer, the u.s. government and therefore decisions on budget are going to affect you directly but what about your other customers with the capacity to pay for the r&d and innovation that we are talking about this afternoon pecks can you give us a balance of what proportion you are looking at for uae and the gulf and other countries national governments? >> speaking from awlaki perspective, our aim is to very quickly have 20% or roughly $10.5 billion in international sales by the end of the next two years. that is a substantial increase from what we do now but not herculean in terms of this direction. we are primarily looking first at countries that are in the english-speaking world because we are more comfortable with them. australia and the united kingdom being among the top but we are also very interested and you know this is in part because of our relationship with the u.s. government. a lot of the governments in the middle east like the saudi's, you know, and a number of other places where we think there are some signifint opportunities as well. with respect to our probably most famous product at the moment, the f-35 joint strike fighter, that is a project of a united the united states government would also governments in the world so we are already internationalized there and we are, we run for example the sandia national laboratory which creates innovative things for all kinds of commercial companies and a 480 of other folks so diversification is important to us. we are the largest i.t. provider to the federal government at the moment so every other cabinet government other than the department of defense so we have a lot of diversity. if i came across as though the department of defense and the three agencies are important to us, i got my message through to you. >> sir, in the back. >> i'm going to be a troublemaker. palm grumbly said you were told not to talk about sequestration. a c-5 five of the biggest military contractors in the government, ibm, lockheed's -- you are facing a condition that's coming up in five weeks. what has plan b if they don't pick sequestration? >> we didn't want to talk about it because we knew from the algorithm that you are going to be asking the question. [laughter] it would be silly to say one was not concerned about that but it's part of the risk model. say my company were highly diverse so we are going to just adapt to whatever the american people say is there will which would be obviously through the congress and the budgeting priorities and so forth but should that happen then i believe that we will go to work as we do every day to try and find innovative ways to provide the same kind of capability, provide as much as can be afforded so i wish we would not but i will tell you what, that happens we will just adapt to it. >> so at boeing, we have been selling into the government space forever. this is not the first downturn that we have been through. depending upon your view of history, seven to 10 years so we have lived through the downturn, the post-conflict flattening of budgets. i will tell you our biggest concern is the effect of this on our customer. our customers statement of work isn't going to change if the law reduces the budget by 3.9%. they still have to go to work. they can't take tuesdays off, because their budget is not cut. we have spent most of our time talking to our customers, talking about how we can provide them similar type of equipment, software services so they can get their job done. we are not playing some you know, kind of pr posturing about we are going to warn all of our employees. we are going to be thoughtful with our employees. they are very important to us. we are going to manage your way through this with minimal disruption we can to our employees but most importantly to our customers. >> i need to respond to that latest statement. my ceo, pardon me, but my ceo i could talk about this because my ceo has been in the lead in the defense industry as saying that unlike past downturns in the defense industry this is of a different sort. this is budget cuts before strategy. it's across-the-board. it makes no sense at all. in terms of how we set our national priorities. you wouldn't run your home but just like this. we shouldn't be running the defense budget like this as well. the laws of the nation and the states of the nation require us to warn people because there is a law in the books that says we must, in some cases 60 and in other cases 90 days before that goes into effect. we will obey those laws because the budget control act is the law of the land. it is not some idea that somebody came up with. it's not some proposed budget. it is the law of the land. and it will take out more than 8% because it's only going to happen at the beginning of the second quarter of this year. it will be a cut of a magnitude that nobody in the department of defense and nobody in the domestic agency of the government has ever seen before. everybody says so cool it won't happen. we will have the solution before this is over because this was the doomsday weapons that we put into the budget. we all better start thinking now about what the impact of that is going to be because on january 3, when the tsa numbers will go way down, when the faa and air traffic controllers will go way down, while all of the parts -- parks will be closed in addition to, there won't be anybody home in parts of the defense department to answer things. we had better get serious about it now. i'm happy that our friends at boeing and other places have large commercial sectors that they can put their employees on. they are members of the aia just as we are and they are senior members in the aia, the aircraft association and have basically made it clear that we don't want sequestration and we don't want it to follow through. >> so, we are ever mindful of customer needs and funding and budgetary constraints. we have been as the company continuing to focus on making sure that our organization manufacturing capacity, making changes with respect to those two things as well as obviously constantly focusing on work force planning to make sure that we have the right number of people to do the work at we have and when, when things are further developed and there is more granularity about what actually happens, we are prepared to respond to it. >> it think we have time for maybe one more question. i think we are wrapping it up. thank you guys. [applause] [inaudible conversations] .. >> also this weekend, more from the contenders. our series that looks at key political figures. >> i drew the line in the dust and cosper common to the defeat of tyranny. segregation now, tomorrow and forever. >> former alabama governor george wallace. american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> according to the pew center on the state, 40 million americans live in an area with a shortage of dentists. the alliance for health reform examines the issue and the cost associated with emergency room visits to treat associated elements. this is 1.5 hours. >> hello, we can get started. my name is ed howard and on behalf of senator rockerfeller, our honorary chairman and board of directors, i would like to welcome you to this program about it very much needed aspect of health policy in the united states, and that is that of oral health. you probably heard and may have heard today that the most common childhood disease in the united states is dental care of cavities. poor oral health is linked to serious physical conditions like diabetes the connection to diabetes and heart disease is not widely recognized. i was listening to a presentation about dental needs a week or two ago, and the speaker felt compelled to remind the audience, and these are her words, that the mountain is part of the body. we have had a lot of reminders about the sorry state of oral health in america from the institute of medicine, the gao, former surgeon general david satcher, former hhs secretary lives of solomon. from the kellogg foundation. plenty of documentation of the gaps in our current system. today, we are going to try to update that story and take a fresh look at the problem and add some policy options to be considered to deal with it. as we were talking just before the program started, nobody is more pleased than jay rockefeller, our honorary chairman, that we are discussing this topic today. there is a story that he tells about coming to the little town of eminence, west virginia come as a vista worker back in 1964. and i actually had someone in our office transcribe what he said a couple of months ago in describing that experience. these are his words. when i arrived, i was shocked to learn that there was absolutely nothing school-age children could get in the way of dental care. they had never been to a dentist, they had never heard of a dentist. there were no dental services available. we saw teenagers whose mouths were already beginning to go bad. we worked to get a bus to bring children to this great school in charleston to receive dental care. i remember that after the dentist checked some of the young teenagers over, he said it is a nice thing for you to do for them, but it really is much too late. if you don't get the baby teeth right, anything else that follows is going to be bad and it works. >> so the senator has been working on dental access issues ever since. , and the alliance is proud to focus on those problems today at the briefing. we are very pleased to have as a partner in that briefing the robert wood johnson foundation, which has been helping america enjoy healthier lives and get the care that they need for 40 years. i have a button to prove that. you can't see it, but it says 40. thank you very much to doctor david krol and his colleagues at the foundation for their help, and thinking through this topic and helping to pull the briefing together. david krol as a pediatrician. he is a team director and senior program officer for human capital. at the robert wood johnson foundation, and we are very pleased to have him comoderating and speaking. david? >> thank you, ed howard, and thank you to you all from the robert wood johnson foundation. we appreciate the effort on this topic and that you are all interested on this topic. oral health is an integral part of overall health. if we believe that to be true, and we do, that ho-hum statement holds within it an abundance of challenges and opportunities. the challenge is. in many ways, as the statement says, they are the same as overall health. racial, ethnic, geographic disparities of disease, and access to care, financing challenges. there are issues of determining and maintaining quality of care in their our workforce controversies, just like overall health. the opportunities, however, are great. one really great opportunity, and i would like to hear more about this, all conversations on health and health care will naturally include oral health. while we have taken the time to have a specific alliance forum on oral health, we really like to see future alliance forums that talk about medicaid and financing, fill in the blank. remembering that oral health is a part of that. often times it is forgotten and not just by the winds come about by our foundation at times. as we continue to recognize the factors influencing health are expressed at individual, family, and community levels, we can develop regulatory educational policy to improve oral health and health care. another opportunity as a funding scheme for prevention and treatment of disease will naturally include oral health. i think that is important for us to remember. right now we failed pretty miserably and medicare where we don't have coverage for dental disease and dental services. you can argue that there is some coverage in certain parts of medicare. but we don't do as good of a job as we share. finally, and perhaps most importantly, and i think something, if you learn nothing from me today. it should be this. there is a great opportunity and remembering that all makes and models of patients, providers, and policymakers, can play a role in improving oral health. and i just hope that you will leave the forum with that in mind as he got into you got into your work, whether it be as a policymaker, a policy influencer, a patient or a provider for those patients. thank you very much for your time, and i enjoyed listening to the rest of this form. >> that is great and thank you very much, steve. a couple of interesting items. a lot of good information in your packets, including biographical information about all of our speakers. there is a sheet that lists additional resources that you can use for further edification. and all of that is also online on our website. oral health.org. as of monday, you will be able to look at the webcast of this briefing on the website of the kaiser family foundation, which we are grateful to for providing that support. there will be a transcript available in a week or so on a website. and if you are watching on c-span at the moment, you can go to the alliance website. that is oral health.org, and you will see the presentations and the rest of the background if you happen to have access to a computer at the same time. you can see on the slide behind me that there is twittering going on about this briefing and that this briefing with the hash tag oral health if you care to join in and one way or another. i want to get to the program now. we have a great lineup of folks with a lot of different experiences to share with you. as soon as i get to my proper space in the notes, i will introduce our initial speaker, doctor lynn mouden. she is a dentist and cheap -- i got confused because we have shuffled the order. -- you don't care why the bad, actually. i'm going to stop in to say that lynn mouden is a dentist and a chief dental officer for the centers of medicare and medicaid services. he is the founder of the felicitous acronym panned out. the before joining cms, he spent 16 years in private practice, he is a past president of the association state directors, and serves as the american dental association's national spokesperson on family violence prevention. we are very pleased to have you here with us today. >> i certainly want to thank the alliance and robert wood johnson foundation for putting together this briefing today. it gives us a chance to not only highlight oral health issues but to talk about some of our successes. i'm sure many of you have talked about the cms triple aim of better health, better health care, and reduced costs. this particular briefing gives us a chance not only to address the triple aim, but to show how oral health is making great inroads into addressing those. cms has an oral health initiative, we have two goals that are specific to dentistry. the first being that we will increase by 10% each point the proportion of medicaid and children who have received a preventive dental service. it is interesting to note that that is 10 percentage points, not 10%, so it doesn't mean going from 20% to 22%. it would mean from going to 20% to 30%. so it's not only a national goal, but a goal that we have set for each of the states, and this information is based on what we know as the cms forum for 16, reporting a pst data. the baseline here for this particular goal is 2011, and we anticipate that we will be addressing the school, hopefully nationally and in the states by 2015. the second goal is to address these children who received a dental sealant on a permanent molar tooth. as you will hear other speakers talk about today, i'm sure that you understand that the combination of dental sealant and inappropriate children and the community can prevent virtually all tooth decay in children. we have said this and set it as our percentage point goal. for the nation and for the state. we will be facing in this particular goal as the data comes in. the cms oral health strategy will help address these particular goals. first of all, we have the opportunity to work with states on developing an oral health action plan. and we will talk more about that in a minute. it is my pleasure that i get to work with the various states and their medicaid programs and providing technical assistance and peer-to-peer learning as they develop these action plans and move forward in addressing the two goals. >> we are obviously work to great deal in outreach providers. with other without the providers, there is no oral health care. we are also working on beneficiaries. we will be having the second cms learning lab and oral health webinar. dealing with outreach to beneficiaries in some successful programs that will be held september 26 at 2:00 o'clock p.m. eastern time. the contact information is available at the end if you want more information, please contact me. we also get the opportunity to work with our partners and health and human services, not only do what is called the oral health coordinating committee, but also in various other issues and programs, as we work with our partners at the cdc, fda, and the health services and the list goes on and on of all of us who are working towards oral health issues. the state action plans that we are asking the state to develop on a voluntary basis to help us address the oral health issues, we are asking them to address both of the goals by 2015. obviously, stakeholder participation is extremely critical to this process. addressing these goals is not something that a medicaid state agency can do on its own. it requires bringing in all the state partners and advocates all of those who are interested in improving oral health for our children. we are going to be aligning efforts, not just through the state action plan, but to stay oral health plans, which most of the states have developed. there are healthy people goals. we are fortunate that each iteration of the healthy people goals continue to have issues that address oral health for children and adults. and we also work pretty closely with our partners, as they work on their performance, and indicators addressing oral health in the states. the action template we have produced, you have several different parts. it will help us get not only describing what is going on addressing the issues, but also in how we can make these improvements. we understand that every state is different. there is no way to develop a national action plan is each of the states worked through their individual issues. their individual problems. their individual resources and their individual politics. we want them to describe in detail the state's existing oral health delivery system. providing data on providers and that is not only dentist but also non-dentists as well. we obviously appreciate the contribution of dental hygienist and other members of the dental team. we also recognize the fact that there are some oral health services that can be provided and physicians offices as well. when we are talking specifically about fluoride varnish applications and risk assessment on young children. the result, their analysis and evaluation and effectiveness of their program, we also want to know what may not have been so successful. we would ask that the states compare their form for 16 data, they can see the measures and talk about whether or not a person has had an annual or dental visit. reimbursement rates are always at the top of the discussion. i was a medicaid dennis for many years in private practice. i know what it is like to get paid 23 cents on the dollar to provide care for patients. i know that state budgets continue to be an issue, as we are funding medicaid treatment and delivery, but by the same token, i think there is something that can be done at the state and national level that will help address these issues. specifically, when we start talking about eliminating administrative barriers. it makes it easier for them to participate. we want them to talk about what we have done to address specifically the placement of dental sealant. again, a proven method for preventing tooth decay. to describe the collaborations of dental schools and dental hygiene programs, because without the providers, there is no dental care. and finally, to describe the status and use of electronic health records and electronic dental records are a little slower in coming on, but we know under the provisions of the portal care that we will be moving closer and closer to electronic health records. so what might they do to address the specific goals? first of all, we want them to describe the activities that are underway or planned for implementation. to describe the schools and how they are going to achieve them. providing specific details on these activities, which, of course, will give us the opportunity to share that information with other state programs as well. and again, to describe barriers to success. not everything that we try always works 100% of the time, and that is all part of the learning process. these lessons learned can be extremely valuable, as other state programs were to either model what has been done or take on that issue and modify it to their own uses. the template actually provides examples of some successful said things about reconfiguring reimbursement rates, which is not necessarily the same as increasing rates. using administrative carriers and showing some of the station said it had done exactly that. and a chance to develop and improve collaboration and partnerships. state medicaid programs don't work in isolation. they work along with all the other partners in addressing oral health issues. so the technical support that we are providing from cms to help address these goals in the action plan, working with them specifically on their partnerships and collaboration. had the opportunity to visit with one of the state programs just this last week. who has taken on the initiative of building a state oral health coalition in a state where one does not exist. we have an opportunity through the partnership for alignment product which i will tell you has been called the sandbox project because we know that people want to learn to play well in the sandbox together. but not making light of it, this project is an effort that will put public health programs and state medicare programs in closer partnership and collaboration, to share the resources and ideas and to share the ways that they can improve access to oral health for children. we are working with a medicaid state dental association on a best practices project, a formal process with criteria not just recognize promising programs, but going through rigorous evaluation to decide whether impact best practices are for state medicaid programs. and we are working with the state to connect one state with another to share these successful models. i was asked to highlight one part of your affordable care act, which talks about the demonstration projects for alternative dental health care providers. part of section 50304 talks about community dental health coordinators and advanced practice dental hygienist. you can read the list, i don't need to go through it. because we all realize that there are issues of access to health care and dental care in every state, there are parts of the population who have an extremely difficult, if not impossible time accessing dental care. and we need to be looking at these various other models that may be useful in addressing these access issues. with a portable care act, calls for demonstration projects, where these different models would actually be proven. one way or the other. there are lists of eligible entities, it always includes dental schools and health departments and such. and those programs must be accredited by the commission, which accredits all dental and dental hygiene programs in the country. so i appreciate the chance to talk about all these issues and what cms is doing to address them. please feel free to contact us anytime. as you work at the national level or the state level as we all work to improve oral health for children and yes, for adults and the elderly. thank you. >> thank you very much, lynn mouden. now i'm going to turn to doctor monica hebl. he practices dental in wisconsin and is part of the access axis prevention and dental council in interprofessional relations. she has also been a past president of the wisconsin dental association, and she has been involved her entire career in access to dental services for underserved populations. thank you for being with us, monica hebl remapped thank you very much. for allowing me to address you this afternoon. as you have already heard, oral health often takes a backseat to medical. in good health is integral to oral health. i appreciate the time you're you are taking to learn about oral health issues. it will take a paradigm shift for oral health to gain enough support to achieve lasting improvement for optimum oral health are for all. the 80s working hard to build momentum and increase the focus on oral health issues by partnering with many groups and organizations involved in oral health. you just heard a little bit about my background, but i would just like to put a little flavor on it, local flavor. i am a private practicing dentist, so this is an unusual experience for me. i'm nervous. i got involved in dentistry as a 14-year-old dental assistant. i still work in that same practice along with my son and brother-in-law. in 2000, we moved from our central city location to the northwest side of the city. and we chose to remained on the bus lines we could continue to take care of those in need. we devote about one third of our time to medical assistance, even though it is economically challenging. we also participate in charity care programs. i have been involved since i graduated in dental school. and i have worked tirelessly to improve access for the underserved. it is a difficult, complex problem that requires activity on multiple fronts. there is no silver bullet to solving access. poverty, geography, lack of oral health education, language and cultural barriers, fear of dental care, and the belief that people who aren't in pain don't need to seek care for some of the factors that affect a person's ability to access care. it will take a collaborative approach of all stakeholders to improve the nation's oral health. the ada has many programs and activities to address the access issue. recently we made it a priority to collaborate and leverage our activities for the greater gains. and i am going to highlight a few of these programs. the cdc program, one of the 10 most significant health achievements of the past century. the cost savings and decrease indices are significant. it is unfortunate that we are spending so much time and energy fighting for such a great venture. we work with state and local societies as well as others to ensure that high quality information is available for those fighting for for it on the local level. here is a map that shows you how hot this topic is. forty-three states have some type of fluoride related activity and a lot of it is protecting it. even though medicaid programs are chronicay

Related Keywords

New York ,United States ,Alabama ,Australia ,Fallujah ,Al Anbar ,Iraq ,Afghanistan ,Philadelphia ,Pennsylvania ,Florida ,Boston ,Massachusetts ,Illinois ,Wisconsin ,Washington ,District Of Columbia ,Denver ,Colorado ,Hempstead ,London ,City Of ,United Kingdom ,West Virginia ,Cayman Islands ,Temple University ,Saudi Arabia ,Elwood Park ,Houston ,Texas ,Cuba ,Orlando ,Chicago ,Central City ,Americans ,America ,Saudi ,Britain ,Iraqi ,British ,American ,Cuban ,Mitch Landrieu ,Stephanie Blake ,Russell Simmons ,David Sanger ,Robert Johnson ,Stephanie Rollins Blake ,Ronald Reagan ,Los Angeles ,Mike Kelly ,Johns Hopkins ,Diana Negroponte ,Mitchell Andrew ,John Harris ,George Wallace ,David Krol ,Wesley Rhodes ,Jim Alexander ,Jimmy Carter ,Al Qaeda ,Ashley Swearingen ,David Kennedy ,Rihanna Allen ,Jay Rockefeller ,Charlie Allen ,Tom Joyner ,Brad Brekke ,Alice Cooper ,David Satcher ,Wayne Hall ,Scott Eisenhower ,Candace Payne ,