right thing to do but it's the economic thing to do. i just want to quote from a study that was done called diabetes research and the public good by to economist. it points out that diabetes caused the united states $245 billion in 2012 and that cost is expected to double by the year 2020. medicare costs from diabetes or $104 billion in 2012 and a projected increase to 226 billion by 2020. and increase costs are attributable in a large way to diabetes role at the leading cause of kidney failure, adult blindness, not dramatic implications fo and nerve damag, stroke, heart attack. those things happen because people don't get the treatment that they need. cgm as part of the treatment, there is no doubt that we should fund that can help with everybody healthier, we can get that legislation passed to make that happen. dr. rodgers, i wanted to ask you, you and dr. z talked about a number of the promising research that is going on to address diabetes. i wonder if you could speak to what you think is the most promising immediate breakthrough that we are looking at that will make a difference in treatment. >> well, i think prevention and certainly is a major -- >> or prevention. >> yes, yes. i do this in terms of prevention of either preventing people who are genetically susceptible to the disease from developing it based upon what i mentioned before, environmental determinants of diabetes, in the immediate term. this is a study of kids from birth to the age of 15 but we already are developing the important knowledge from that study. but preventing people who have those genes and have actually begun to show signs of autoimmunity our trial study is beginning to use certain types of drugs to actually reverse that autoimmune process to allow those beta cells to last longer we know the longer they last the less likely it is that individuals with type i diabetes will develop serious complications. for the people with the disease of this artificial pancreas, that is linking the insulin infusion with continuous glucose monitoring in, brought together by some sort of, i shouldn't say, some sort of computer device specifically on phones now on portable phones actually the best technology because we know keeping the blood sugar in line is really the best way to prevent these complications and as i mentioned, just in the last two years we've had such great success at this that it is quite likely working with her friends at the fda that many of these devices will be to put. so that's really in the short term i think of likelihood for the best success with the largest impact. >> thank you very much. i am almost out of time but i wonder if i could get immunity and is about to kill me what is the best advice -- emilia and isabelle to tell you what is the best advice for some has just been diagnosed with type i diabetes speak with the advice i would give is to educate your friends and family members as quickly as you can about your disease. because he to get them involved it takes the pressure off and it's better for your safety and your mental health. >> how about you come isabelle? >> i would say that, like keep trying to like raise money and make sure like no one stops you from doing anything just because you have type i diabetes. always do what you dream. >> that's great advice. [applause] >> thank you, madam chair. >> okay. senator casey, try to talk about. [laughter] >> i won't even try. but thanks so much of a new. have more hearings like this where we not only have testimony but also questions and an audience participation and reaction. that's pretty record so we're grateful. i want to give a shout out to some pennsylvanians i met with earlier today. ethan howard from wayne, pennsylvania, evan from west chester, julie from lancaster, catherine in pittsburgh and madison houston from waterford. give them a round of applause. [applause] >> we did some pictures and because they're so mobilized into effective in such good at this i figured they can come back here and solve our appropriation problems and work on foreign policy, whatever we're grateful for that, and i'm, first want to apologize for being late and is a good bit of a testament but we are grateful to have this chance to talk foro me. no, belong because i was late. but i want to make sure sometimes we have an exhaustive discussion of the topic and often senators can leave here without giving a to-do list, or at least one that is emblazoned in our mind. i did want to ask before kids were younger witnesses, on the left side, my left, you're right, a doctor, i just want to go back to you. would you hope if you had a short list? what would you hope that congress would you not only in the near term but let's say over the next couple of years in terms of short-term assignment and longer-term commitments as well speak with senator, i want to say that i'm very grateful for all of the support that congress has actually given to the nih and identified by medical research in an area that is moving forward that use of great interest as i mentioned earlier, we have such great ideas out there but, unfortunately, in recent years have not been able to have the opportunity to bring in as many new ideas and investigators as we certainly would like to in the short-term idea of what want to thank you for the support that we have learned about and we hope that as that progresses forward. i'll be happy into used to report to you what happened with that incremental support that we have received. we in niddkd really want to focus on all aspects of this from prevention to early intervention to making certain that primary and secondary complications are considered because the road is the secondary complications, the eye disease, kidney disease, a non-traumatic amputations, the neuropathy that truly contributing greatly to a cost of $245 million that senator shaheen referenced. that's really driving the cost of this, both for our young as well as our older population. so we are keen to wear that and we are targeting our efforts in all of these categories. >> and for anyone else, we'll wl have about a minute and a half i want to make sure we have a moment. anyone else on the panel who -- >> i think i think the answer is very short, same idea to senator earlier, is finding. funding and funding again. spent that's an important to-do list. important to-do list. i know i'm almost out of time but isabelle, went to ask you about how your friends have helped you throughout the early years of your life when you have the challenge of not just getting through school but also getting with a significant health challenge. can you describe how your friends have helped? >> so my friends are like very helpful. when i was in preschool and kindergarten, my mom came in, and she helped me explain to the class, like why i was always, like getting pulled aside so they weren't getting confused. so now they like know that i have and they are very, mike helpful, because like sometimes, they go until the teacher and they say isabelle's pump is ringing. i she needs to go to the nurse. so they are like very helpful. >> why do we give and applause to your friends, how about that? [applause] thank you. >> thank you. senator warren. >> thank you very much, senator collins. i apologize for being late. we a kind of running multiple things at once. but i had to com had to come and join this group again this year and a special thank you to senator collins for pulling this all together. this is really a terrific annual event. i also want to say a special shout out to all getting to be that to jeffrey from plymouth, massachusetts. where are you? good to see you. [applause] we've all been talking about the cost of diabetes. type i diabetes, it poses a terrible person costs on their kids, on your families. and the financial cost is staggering, nearly 40% of families with diabetic children experience financial strain and cure for type i diabetes costs our health system and decimated $15 billion to you. i want to start on the cost question from a different direction. dr. rodgers, if we could delay the onset or reduce the severity of type i diabetes, so that millions of americans could stop buying insulin, glucose monitors, test strips, if we could stop paying the cost of doctors visits to emergency rooms, what do you estimate we could save every year? >> center toward, there's no doubt that if we could prevent diabetes from occurring and reduce the severity of the disease, that would result in a tremendous cost savings. and i think organizations like the jdrf have actually cost estimated but that would result in a 10% or 20% the nih hasn't made any of those cost estimates to my knowledge. what i can say though and as i referred to before, major cost associate with the secondary complications, the eye disease, kidney disease, non-traumatic amputations. and we think that certainly, we have already and i mentioned some of the benefits that we see in terms of cost-effectiveness in the treatment of the secondary complications. one could potentially do estimations on those. but i don't have sitting here today a good estimate to tell you how much precisely we could -- >> but i think of the base of some of the estimates that jdrf has given us, 10% reduction would be about $3 billion. in other words, a lot of money. and which combine that with the devastating human cost of do think it would be a no-brainer to invest more money in research on diabetes. [applause] >> so let's pin this down. dr. rodgers, you direct the national institute of diabetes and kidney diseases. how much money do you have for your work compared inflation adjusted with what you had 10 years ago? >> that's a question that if one were to include in addition to our regular appropriations as well as specialty these a program appropriations, because of inflation, niddkd has lost about 24% in our buying power over that same speed so here we are. we see the cost imposed and yet you've got effectively about 24% less money to work with than you had 10 years ago for the kind of research that you are doing. and as we know you are not alone. nih funding overall is down 25% since 2003. that means for nih we are investing about $12.5 billion less in medical research this year that if we just kept up with inflation over the last decade. last week house passed the 21st century cures act which includes that tears innovation fund that is meant to get nih about 1.9 to in dollars per year for the next five years. that doesn't fill a $12.5 billion hole but it certainly is something. here's what i'm concerned about. i'm concerned an age may not even get that much. before this bill passed the house, a second quarrying the appropriators to continue to fund the nih at current levels was taken out. this is called a maintenance of effort provision, and without it there's nothing to stop congress from cutting the an age, adding 1.9 at the top accounting 1.9 billion from the base budget, or for that matter cutting 2 billion from the budget or 4 billion from the budget in order to try to cut government spending overall. and if that happens, nih budget without actually increase at all. even when 1.9 billion for the tears innovation fund is added on top. so let me ask you, dr. zaghouani, if the result of a 21st century jurors bill is a new fund that's great fanfare but doesn't actually result in any additional money for nih. does that help the research community? >> actually i begin to downsize my laboratory because i would not get appropriate funding to maintain. i was speaking with the director of nih, doctor rogers, and i need to three grants about $2 million apiece every five years. so altogether in order to maintain my operation going. so because i couldn't do it for the last two years, i have started downsizing. so downsizing is not only the economic for the people, it's for research that now it's going to be stopped. we can make progress. there is one more problem. impd people to take cover when i am out. i can no longer claim those people anymore. so we are hurting -- many, many different points. >> so what you are saying is you can't maintain, and that you are cutting back, sort not in a position to grow the research. families struggling with diabetes, with parkinson's come with alzheimer's, other series conditions deserve more than lipservice from congress. they deserve real increases in funding on medical research. that's what we need to do. i introduce the medical innovation act that could boost the nih budget by 20%. it's not enough but it's a start. i hope colleagues will join in this effort, or improve the 21st century cure spill so eventually about additional money or bring other ideas to the table for more money for medical research. if we are serious about saving lives to research and saving money, and congress has to step up and make a real commitment of real dollars. thank you, madam chairman. [applause] >> i want to thank all of our witnesses today, and particularly the delegates who have come from every state in the union, and across the globe to make the case for more support for diabetes funding. that is that shared goal of everyone in this committee, and i would point out that it's because of the efforts of families all across this country whose children have juvenile diabetes are type i diabetes, that we've been able to triple the funding for diabetes research since 1997 when we first started the diabetes caucus. and i can see doctor rogers nodding in agreement. and i'm proud of the fact that we have extended a special diabetes program which focuses on type one and on diabetes among native american populations that we've been able to extend that important program. we could not have done those spending increases that are so vital to progress without the help of the people in this room, the people who have testified, the children have testified previously that our children's congresses in past years, and without the advocacy of the jdrf, the american diabetes association, and other groups. so we really have come a long, long ways, and that's why we have the technology that we do. mary tyler moore for many, many years always came to our hearings to review the progress and talk about her own life living with type i diabetes are she was not able to be here this year, but she certainly is in the thoughts of many of us. she once told me that you have to be a mathematician, a physician, a personal trainer, and a dietitian all rolled into one to keep your diabetes under control. and i think there's a lot of truth in that. fortunately, today we also have some wonderful advances in technology come and we're going to keep pushing for that as well as change in medicare policy so that when mr. amato, when the young people here become mr. amato's age, they will not have the fight that he's had to get the coverage for the cgm. and we're going to make sure that that happens. so my thanks to the more than 160 delegates and all of the families he goes after all, it does take the entire family who have traveled to washington to tell your stories. you are the ones who really make a difference by putting a human face on this disease. i want to thank everyone at jdrf for your help in organizing this. the nih, dr. z for coming as well. mr. amato. but most of all our three young people on the panel, isabelle, community and kate. it was wonderful to have you here in washington. committee members will have until friday july 242 so that any additional materials for questions for the record. i want to thank all the members of the panel who have been here today, and all of you for sitting so patiently so long. i know that that can be a trial. so thank you, and let's end of this hearing in an unconventional way by giving a round of applause to all the delegates who are here. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] >> this hearing is now adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up live at 7 p.m. eastern, author david vine discusses his book face nation, u.s. military bases abroad harms america and the world. >> tonight at eight, c-span2 thousand six tour at st. bernard parish in louisiana. >> you can't describe it rick boucher whole life to go on completely. nothing but cement left. and rubble. and not only your house but your whole community. all your friends, but, everybody is gone and now it's going to be a year later and you are still, her family and friends you don't see anymore that she used to see. a hell of a feeling. you don't forget it, you'll never forget the rest of your life. >> followed with a 2000 by town hall meeting in new orleans. >> i am relying on you. i know all this is state level, federal level at all levels. i don't have them. i voted for you. to represent me on the local level. i don't know where else to go. i don't know what else to do. >> thursday night more from the atlantic conference in new orleans with craig fugate. >> now a discussion on history and future of civil jury trials. the aspen institute recently hosted a panel of top litigators who examined whether the right to trial by jury is disappearing and the rise of arbitration and victims' compensation fund. this is one hour. >> and welcome everyone to the conversation about the disappearing civil jury trial. i am jeff rosen, that the great privilege of having this wonderful institution, the national constitution center in philadelphia which has a mandate from congress to disseminate information about the u.s. constitution on a nonpartisan basis. what we have the opportunity to do tonight thanks to this wonderful program is to delve into a provision of the bill of rights that many of us are less than me with and we are with the first amendment and the fourth amendment and that is the seventh amendment to the u.s. constitution. we are going to ask why is it that the civil jury trial which represented 20% of all trials in 1930 now represents only 2% of federal trials and less than 1% of state trials. it is a disappearing right. and we will discuss why that happened and whether it's a good thing and whether it's anything we should do something about the let's begin as always with the text from the constitution and let's begin with this beautiful new edition of the constitution from the national constitution center with a completely thrilling new introduction by yours truly and david rubenstein about the relationship that was mentioned between a declaration, the constitution and bill of rights, th the introduction tricyclic have the rights that were promised in the declaration are implicit in the constitution and codified in the bill of rights. let's turn to the seventh amendment. i can do some of them by heart like the fourth but the fact i cannot do the seventh suggests that is less familiar to me, anyway. and i can find it right here. here it is. in suits at common law with a value in controversy shall exceed $20 -- this is one of the two places in the constitution that a dollar amount is specified -- institute, but what about in controversy shall see $20 the right of trial by jury shall be preserved and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the united states, then according to the rules of common law. okay, to begin our discussion with our honoree, one of the great lawyers of the united states in america and one of america's most passionate defenders of the civil jury trial and that is stephen susman in addition to his extraordinary work as a plaintiff's attorney and litigator where he's represented plaintiffs and defendants ranging from the northrop case in the suit against mcdonnell douglas, house speaker jim wright, and brothers. he said the greatest of all civil trials of the past generation the steve is a passionate defender of the just and right. is great a new program to explore the back of civil juries. steve, what did the framers had in mind when they wrote those words? if you're a delegate at the constitutional convention today would you argue the same words should be inscribed? >> well, it is clear that the revolution and the constitution and the bill of rights were very much about up with this idea of trial by jury. it is the only right -- not free speech, not carrying weapons, not, nothing, not equal protection, not due process. trial by jury is the only right that is mentioned both indie aggression back as a grievance that the king has deprived us of trial by jury -- declaration of independence, in mentioned in article iii of the constitution, and the subject of three of the first 10 amendments known as the bill of rights. amendment number five guarantees the right to a grand jury. .. which contained a right to a jury trial, so this was a strong tradition that goes back 800 years, for anglo-saxon people, and the colonists, the founders felt that this was very important. they felt that juries were necessary to protect them from an overreaching central government, from corrupt or biased judges, from a lot of it was economics because the jurors , the idea of jurors was that they would protect debtors from having to pay their creditors. there was a lot of that going on because, so i just think that you have got to have the history to know they were very concerned about their juries. every state constitution today except for two contained a right to a jury trial. every state constitution written between 1786 and 1777 contained a right to a jury trial in civil cases. before we get rid of it we need to think about what we are doing and consider whether this is a rights that is a right that maybe is worth keeping but i do think jeffrey your question is fair. if you are writing a constitution today would you insert and had a constitutional right for a trial by jury, and i come out, i very much argue of course you would. why is a jury -- for the name of this program is juries lending, trees binding and victim compensation, so i think there is no better way to find the truth than to have a jury of 12 people are cross-section of the community, diverse people. 12 ears, 12 eyes, 12 hearts 12 brains are better than one and sure there are good judges and their affair judges but not all judges are good. we keep in mind that in this country two-thirds of the judges are elected in partisan elections. and it becomes important that we keep the jury to protect us and to compensate victims when there is some form of wrongdoing. all the empirical research shows that almost, almost without exception, judges who have tried to jury trials think that the jury gets it right. lawyers who have lost jury trials think that the jury gets it right even though you lose a case in your heart of hearts you say i deserve to lose. and the entire mock trial, the jury simulation industry which has built up in this -- you build up and send the case to them a fact pattern that convinces me that the juries get it right watching them because they are few watch them actually deliberate, you watch them behind one-way glass deliberate or you watch them on video deliberate a jury gives legitimacy and a jury when you talk about truth finding, truth finding usually involves missed telling the whether it be blacks or women, the fight always begins with the right to serve on the jury. isn't that funny? if you go to youtube and google jury service you see there is a lot of fun made about how people try to avoid jury service with all these excuses but in fact the people who serve really do become better citizens and i suspect the next supreme court case on same-sex, whether you can discriminate against people because of their sexual preference may well deal with whether a lawyer can exercise a peremptory challenge against a potential juror because they are. the law is very clear you can't do it on racial grounds or gender grounds. so, it's import you shouldn't have to be punished unless there's a consensus that you commit the act. civil trials are different and they are varied and lots of things happen in civil trials so turning to just civil trials and leaving leaving aside for a moment things like the fourth amendment where you are an adjunct to the criminal system. in subpoena matters the judge judge decide them anyway so they are not a production of the jury. why should we not look at jury trials as the be-all and end-all? first of all the system would break down. if you look at the number of disputes, civil war criminals that get resolved outside the province of trial that's almost a necessary element of our system. we tried all of those all of us would be sitting on juries continuously and it would become our occupation. you can't have it. it won't happen because society cannot afford to do it that way so there's a cost to the civil system. what are the costs? you have to bring people insisted on the jury and many of these people feel their occupations in their daily lives are being disrupted and they feel it's in and do position and especially since we bring in more people than ever to sit on the civil jury so many people spend time waiting around to see if they will be on a panel and whether they will be impaneled on the pending jury and they don't come away with a good positive feeling. they come away feeling lousy $30 or whatever i'm given is no recompense for disrupting my life in them because of that we have to have procedures to chase them if they don't comment all of this is not free of cost. the system is not cost free. it imposes substantial cost. that's one practical consideration. a jury trial imposes costs on the court system. you have to have people to bring in the panels, to ensure that people show up when they are called. you have to have the same judge sitting to the trial as if he were trying to case because he can't walk off the bench and save folks this is all yours. he paid -- may not pay a lot of attention to the testament that he should so you'd have all the same cost he would have been the civil system which is prevalent all over the world except really here in australia and canada they have a few civil jury trials and basically we are unique in this. so that's another cost that really does matter. then, how about from the point of the of the litigants? they are going to litigate -- litigate their case is anyway but some of the mechanisms we -- mechanisms we have developed by jury expert sitting around, psychologists now sitting around figuring out what clues you might have to how somebody would react so our theory is on the one hand you get a cross-section of the community but all trial lawyers know you move heaven and earth to make sure that juries are a community of people who visit we agree with you so you have a pre-jury selection so you can get clues as to what kind of thing might appeal to this kind of people. if you get pushed to see that you get people who are favorable during a jury trials you have tracking. you get a group of people and you pay them to listen to the same thing to tell you if you are going over well with the audience. it's like nilsson. this is not cost free and that's one reason people worry about a jury trial, because you build up the cost. we can't run the system word a jury trial is universal. so the question becomes if you have it if you find a class of cases in which the stakes are big enough and the clash over what happened in the world is big enough how do you distinguish that and how do you decide what goes to a jury? there may be a better way to sort out the jury cases from the nonjury cases. here is the case, is it better to give it to a judge or jury? the sources of controversy over that are you have the statistics that pretty much judges and juries see the case the same way as a two-way sword. if you are not getting any with different results in the jury why are we spending this time and effort to have one? if basically you agree get agreement. not universally true but true and 85% of the cases as the numbers show. second, if you go to the key of the jury in colonial times it was a very called nullification. the jury could decide rule of law or not. we are drawing the line and these are the kings rules. in a classic case i was taught in civics is the john peter singer trial. you bring them up for libel because he is insulting the king and the kings judges are about to put them away. the jury says no, we are not going to do that. we are walking out of here and he is walking out of here. this is an old vacation of law. nullification is controversial in itself when you have an independent judiciary and when you have a legislature, an elected legislature elected executive it's a little bit different from having a king who rules by divine right. so to what extent juries decide cases on factors you would not say are part of the legal framework that really part of their community. that's a tough question. you might like it and you might not like it but it is different and it does give an opportunity that doesn't exist in a system where judges at least are sworn to and will try to apply legal rules and say the results should be dictated by the rules. now i think when you try a case there are two kinds of facts have become involved and particularly because of the many remedies and many new laws we have invented their are not just the people who have done it. there are the a historic backs, what happened and there can be disputes about what happened. who said what to whom? who drove the car what's the though? i think juries have common sense and probably would agree with judges most of the time about who is saying a credibly and who is telling the truth and who's story holds together but we also have many cases dependent on what i would call predict that facts. there are theories about the world, scientific controversies or economic controversies and academically we have developed many new techniques to evaluate and now you call in 12 people who may or may not have ever heard of any of these techniques and yousaf folks you will see two economists appear throughout ph.d.s. they are not lying because they don't know anything except what the are and they are going to show you their regression models and you are going to figure out whether the prices being charged were the result of a conspiracy or the result of the way the markets work and good luck. do we really think you can get in the valuation of those kinds of issues? you have drug liability cases in the issue is a particular chemical substance capable of causing a certain kind of injury and this is something if you look at the development of drugs and the fda and the scrutiny by the expert panels he could make for years but the jury is told you have to decide one ray of the other, up or down. you can't say maybe. you are going to vote so it's a different kind of system and whether considering the kinds of questions we bring to court, whether it makes sense to a juries another question. remember at the time of the constitution experts were not allowed to testify. they were just not allowed and in the middle of the 1800's they came in a criminal process when you had handprints and footprints and things like that and you needed an expert but they have now universalized it. almost no case starts without some kind of an expert and they become the kind of narrators of the story. people use them quite effectively to do more than convey their expertise. they are allowed to draw conclusions. they are allowed to speak so they become very influential. they weren't known at the time of the mm and whether you see the system differently given the way trials are conducted i think that's another very difficult question. we have seen judges grapple with those kinds of expert issues and find great difficulty. one other thing that i think that leads to is the question of time, because when cases are tried by a judge people say this is a deficiency the judge doesn't decide at the moment. he goes back. he can look at the transcripts, he can look at the exhibits and if he needs to think about it he can take months to think about it and sometimes more. he is not told you were going to be locked up until you decide. juries are told basically you had better decide or we will keep you locked up or a while and so that instantaneous kind of reaction which may be good for sorting out conflicting versions of real events in the past may not need the way to sort out more typical controversies that are dependent one thing i would say being the devil incarnate is what we are seeing is a historic conservative liberal poland tub because at the time of the constitution the conservative forces who are trying to enforce debts are not necessarily on faith side and the application of rules of law and the predominant way to decide controversies verses the application of human judgment, community consensus and modifying the law. so when we say we are a government of laws not men, if you have the seventh amendment that's only partially true because you turnover to man and i don't mean this only men, women who ever, the job and the opportunity to modify the application of the law. so i think in that situation i wouldn't pass the seventh amendment as it stands today and i think very hard about how to determine whether there -- it should be a class of cases in which is amenable and how in the course of those cases the issues could be allocated between judges because they always are. >> thank you so much for that opening statement. a round of applause. what a pleasure to introduce ken feinberg to mediate between these two positions because ken feinberg isn't that the nations leading mediator and champion of alternative dispute resolutions. in his remarkable career he has been special master of the 9/11 victims fund and was appointed by attorney general ashcroft added minister that extraordinary operation. he also administered the $20 billion fund created by british petroleum for victims of the spill. he assisted the virginia tech president giving gifts donations to the victims of the on-campus shooting. he has had more experience than anyone else in administering huge complex alternative to the civil jury system. you heard the arguments on both sides. i want to ask first tell us what it was like to have administered the 9/11 victims fund and how did you put a monetary of value on those funds into something like the 9/11 victims fund for the vp compensation fund a plausible alternative to the civil jury system? >> the last question is the easiest. these funds that i'd minister are a precedent for nothing, for nothing. you will see them as aberrations three in 15 years. the 9/11 fund created by congress, 13 days after the attacks. if congress had waited two more weeks it wouldn't have created this type of funds. dep oil spill, bp walked into the white house saw a president obama, walked out and now we will create upfront no trials but at 20 billion-dollar fund. 20 billion to compensate all the victims of the oil spill. i received 1,200,000 claims from 50 states. i thought -- got 15 clemson colorado. i didn't even know the oil got to colorado. alaska 35 foreign countries sweden, norway, build it and they will come. [laughter] so these programs are not a threat to the trials. they are not a precedent and it's important that they not be a precedent. the 9/11 victim compensation fund was absolutely the right thing to do after those attacks. some public policy. the country wanted to show the world we take care of our own. it worked. 97% of all eligible families that lost a loved one in the world trade center, the airplanes, the pentagon came into the fund. taxpayer money. taxpayer money. don't ever do it again like that don't ever create a fund like that again. you'll never see it again. you should have read some of the e-mails i got during my administration. dear mr. feinberg my son died in oklahoma city. where's my check? dear mr. feinberg, i don't get it. i don't get it. my daughter died in the basement of the world trade center in the original 1993 attacks committed by the same type of people. why aren't i eligible? dear mr. feinberg you have got to explain something to me. last year my wife saved three little girls from drowning in the mississippi river and then she drowned a heroin. where's my check? bad things happen to good people every day in this country. you don't have to 9/11 fund. there was no 9/11 fund after katrina or after tornadoes or forest fires or earthquakes. that's not america, these funds and to delegate all of this authority president bush, ken i wanted to do the 9/11 fund. no committees, no appeals, no second-guessing, you decide. that's not the constitution. that's not checks and balances. i can see why they would be concerned about that frankly. president obama with the bp oil spill and a great job can, thank you. on behalf of the american people you got out in 16 months $6.5 billion to people who suffered economic -- because of that oil spill. great, great. all that was with a handshake during bp and the president of the united states. no laws, no regulations except what i set out. now that's not the constitution and that's not america. i get involved when policymakers decide. very rare. we have got to think out of the box. steve is right in a lot of what he says. and even if he is her right he would like to be. the fact of the matter is, the fact of the matter is policymakers, i don't decide these programs, policymakers do, congress, the white house, general motors. they decide. let's set up a fund. .. a better question for these two imminent lot clerks, a better question for steve, why aren't there more. that's not a, that's a what's wrong with our system today that more people can take advantage of the seventh amendment. what i do, believe me it is a better study, not a law seminar but in a history class because of what i do is no threat to our legal system, to our our lawyers, or to our judges. these are rare aberrations and they should be seen as aberrations not to be encouraged. >> the question is fairly met and steve, i think think ken's question is excellent. the seventh the moment is here to day but why is it that people take advantage of it. tell us about the history that led those numbers to decline to 20% in 1922 less than 20% today and what would you do to increase the numbers and have more people take advantage of the seventh amendment right you mark. >> i think the trial lawyers and judges have done a very bad job, the question is what is the competing dispute. what is litigation competing with? if your product is too expensive or not deemed to be safe to competitors they will win out. that's what's happening with arbitration. arbitration is a private dispute resolution. it's horrible that we have gone to so much private dispute resolution just like i think of you horrible if every school in the country will was a private school, i think there's plenty of room for private schools but there's also room for public schools. arbitration, there are these are paid private judges. i think the lawyers have been at fault and the judges because, in a way they have enabled juries in banding the truth. the jury is not supposed to read anything in the paper, or look at what's in the internet. it's totally contrary to what used to be. a jury of your peers was supposed to come to court because they knew something about the case. now we are looking for the lowest denominator on juries. triers go on for ever so judges allow them to go on for a week so instead of getting a day in court you get a month in court. the consequences the only people who serve our juries are those who are unemployed or retired. so, that's not good. the jury instruction on the law art totally incompetence, you can't possibly, a lawyer can't sit there and list it. a lawyer considered in a patent case and tell you what it meant. i read a book called a trial by jury, every time they ask a question to the judge he says he wouldn't answer it, you don't get written instructions, you're not allowed to ask questions, you're not allowed to discuss the case. everything you can do to make it difficult for people to comprehend we have done to our, and that has to change. there is a lot that is wrong with the jury. a lot of it i think originates with the business community, in the 80s all litigation was bad, that's when we had court reform and lawsuit read abuse reform. many changes in the law to keep people from going to court, that was considered to be a bad thing. as a result, we now have you cannot buy any goods or services without a green to give up your rights not only to a jury trial, but any trial. every time you click on the internet, i tried to get in with my iphone this week to the itunes store and there are new terms and conditions, check here if you want to go further. if you didn't check you didn't get in. so i can see what the terms and conditions are, it's a 73 page contract. [laughter] i'm not kidding you, no one can read that on an iphone or laptop. i'm sure in there somewhere is that i have waved my right for a jury trial and limited myself to damages. the supreme court has blessed this. if you are consumer, a borrower, a patient, an employee, every time you sign a contract you give up your right to a trial by jury, to access the public justice system. that needs to be changed, badly. it's really interesting if you are criminal or accused of a crime and want to give up a jury trial the judge brings you before the bench and explain super two arms you have a lawyer here, you have a right to trial and if you don't exercise this might happen, do you understand, do you speak english. he makes the accused speak in court so we know there has been a voluntary knowing waiver of the rights under the sixth amendment to a trial by jury in a criminal case. why don't don't we do that under the seventh amendment. instead we have the supreme court sanctioning these click through contracts which people give up their seventh amendment rights without knowing they gave it up. a study done this march, the results were published, 90% of the people who are subject to a mandatory arbitration clause are not even aware that they are subject to that, that they have lost the right to go to court. the public generally does not understand that you are losing your right to trial by jury because you are voluntarily giving it up every time you buy anything, and big businesses overreaching. corporate america is hiding behind these arbitration clauses to avoid facing a jury. there are many reasons why we are losing and i think arbitration is one of those reasons. another problem is, eight of the nine supreme court justices have never tried a jury case. that's a lot different than the day that i was working for the courts. justice black wanted to protect the jury because he had done it before, he had worked jury trials. now you see these coffee case that is reported in the popular media media. there's all these popular words about juries doing extreme things and if we got rid of it maybe we can save the seventh amendment. >> we have about ten minutes left here protect questions. i have to warn you that with there will be a vote at the end of our discussion and you will have to decide whether or not if you are a delegate of the constitution if you would vote for the seventh amendment today. bring your questions to inform that boat and you're welcome to ask of any of our panelists. >> earlier jury notification was mentioned, could any of you elaborate on that. >> i'm happy to do that in a moderator role. i will describe it and then i want you you to amplify a point you made. jury modification was at the core of important cases about shaping the first and fourth amendment. steve mentioned his anger trial where printer print is stuff that criticizes the king, he can argue that he didn't criticize the king and by all accounts he should have been found guilty but a simple jury refused to convict him because they didn't think that judicious libel was appropriate. under the fourth amendment john wilkes was accused of printing inappropriate pamphlets, the search did not think that the general warrants violated the natural rights of famous people. those are two examples of the jurors refusing to convict people in civil trials of laws they consider unjust even though according to law at the time, they were in fact guilty. do you really believe given that history of the core of our constitution, the mere fact that we're in our democracy and no longer ruled by a king means that civil jury should not retain the right to nullify what they consider unjust laws? >> the context of notification as you have an arbitrary authority which may be in your view totally unjust and so suddenly you're up against it. the king has said i know what judicious libel is and clearly i have proven it. what the jury is saying is were not going to accept that, we don't agree with it so he's talking about debtors and it's quite clear that they may have a right of all creditors to collect and it's unfair to our economy and so no. why do you want 12 people arbitrarily chosen to make a law. we have a democratic system, it's a little different and this is the point i was making ab3 it's a little different and this is the point i was making about nullification. everybodnt

Related Keywords

Louisiana , United States , Canada , Australia , Mississippi River , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania , Alaska , Town Hall , Massachusetts , Virginia , Washington , District Of Columbia , United Kingdom , New Orleans , West Chester , Colorado , Sweden , Poland , Americans , America , British , Pennsylvanians , American , Craig Fugate , John Wilkes , Rick Boucher , Jim Wright , Lancaster Catherine , David Rubenstein , Stephen Susman , Ethan Howard , John Peter , Mary Tyler Moore , Ken Feinberg , Mcdonnell Douglas , Jeff Rosen ,