but whether or not, in fact, it has been leveled or whether there was some either advantage during that 21 day period that exists that assuming the information that was made available beyond that one person's mind, but also the question as to whether or not this information in the possession of one party or the other, even though it's in the possession of both, that it advantages one party more than the other party. now, i don't know if i said clearly there what i meant, but you can get somebody who's analogy i think probably doesn't work at all, but you can get somebody who is wealthy a dollar and you can get somebody who's broke a dollar. the fact that you gave them both a dollar clearly advantages the person who's broke more than a

person who is wealthy. you gave them both a dollar. in this case, i have no opinion on this question, but it seems to me it could be an issue as to whether or not the exchange of the same information advantages one party more than the other for what ever reasons could exists. .. >> for their presence here

today, for coming during this weather challenge. i know particularly for one of you, you came a long distance and maybe had no sleep. i won't identify which of the two of it is because both of deserve credit for your testimony and i appreciate it and we will stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> a look at the inside of the cato institute here in washington, d.c., where we're going to be hearing a live discussion on different education systems around the world. some of the speakers include the founder of the largest chain of for-private schools in sweden as well as journalist sarah sparks from education week.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> thank you. >> well, i think we should be able to get started now. and i'd just like to welcome everyone to the cato institute. my name is andrew coulson and i direct the cato institute's center for educational freedom. now, if you're here today, it's probably because you recognize that there are serious problems with the american education system. and if you're watching us on c-span, that probably goes for you, too. unless you just switched over

here because the show you were watching went to commercial and in which case i hope you would say. that's the great thing about channel-surfing today. we just don't have broadcast cable and tv and youtube and hulu and netflix. it's easy to flip away from something that's boring or some annoying commercial and find exactly what we're looking for. it's a lot harder to do that in education. it's still the norm today in the united states that the typical child attends a school to which she was assigned by a bureaucrat who's never met her. and so some of those schools are really quite good. and many of them are not. far too many of them are not. we had the same problem for generations. too many bad schools, not enough good ones.

and we've tried a million different things. we've had a new slogan, a new campaign every few years to try to turn that relationship around. and none of that has worked. if you're one of the millions of kids who end up in a mediocre school, we clip your dreams a little. and if you end up in a really bad school, well, we actually have a term now for the really bad schools. we call them dropout factories. that's actually really weak imagery. it totally fails to capture the horror of what's actually happening in awful schools. we're not just taking some lump of ore and turning it into a abstract widget of failure. we're taking living, breathing kids who have hopes and dreams and we're slashing those hopes and dreams to pieces when we

fail them educationally. schools are not dropout factories, they're slaughter houses of dreams. that's a horrible image. it's a horrible image but it's not horrible because it's ugly. it's horrible because it's true. and despite how horrible that is, there's still hope. we could already point today to schools that do a great job. that continuously, regularly out-perform the norm as far as graduation rates and academic achievement and performance. all we need to do is figure out how to get more of those schools and fewer bad ones. how to replicate excellence? how to clone superman to use the title of this panel. that's a general problem and it's already been solved in

every other field. think about it. think about excellent things, excellent services and products in every other field. it's routine for them to scale up and crowd out products that no longer meet our demands. that's the norm. that's what always happens. the only field in which excellence doesn't just automatically spread and crowd out lower-performing services and products is education. so could it be that if we were to run schools a little bit more like the way we run everything else, we'd see the same scaling-up of excellence in education that we see in every other field. and that's the question that we're going to ask today by looking at two countries that have already for decades been moving a step down the road towards a free enterprise approach towards education. now, the idea of schools run as businesses, as for-profit

businesses is pretty alien in this country. outrageous some people would say. but what's more outrageous? rewarding the educators who do the best job of fulfilling children's potential or perpetuating the status quo in which we too often destroy that potential completely? helping well, helping us to answer these questions is a truly unique panel of speakers. we'll start with peje emilsson who is a serial entrepreneur. after studying at both stockholm university and harvard business school, he founded an international communications company. and a public opinion research firm and ten years ago, a chain of private schools

kunskapsskolan. and it's different than most u.s. private schools in that it is run as a business. it is a for-profit enterprise. and given how crazy that idea that sounds in the united states, presumed bastian of capitalism, imagine the reception that peje he received when he through that in sweden. our next speaker is humberto santos who is a researcher in the public policy institute and diego portales is a research assisted at the same university. he previously worked in the studies department of the chilean ministry of planning. and his current research focuses on the analysis of local education markets, regulations, and accountability in educational systems, which is perfect for the subject matter that we have today. putting these first two presentations in an american

perspective and asking some challenging questions will be sarah sparks, who covers education research trends and issues for the national education week newspaper. and she also discussed the politics, personalities and for those of you who are familiar with statistics jargon, the p values behind the research on these topics. and she does that for the blog "inside school research." prior to joining education week, she spent five years writing about federal and state education regulations. and authoring two technical assistance books for school administrators on homeless students and english-language learners so we have a really wonderful panel and with that introduction, i would like to hand the podium over to peje emilsson. [applause] >> thank you. >> thank you very much. let me start by give a little background of what happened in sweden because most people are

surprised at sweden, one of the first countries put this model together. sweden was going very much to the left of the 1968. the trade unions were fighting for trade union funds that would give the majority ownership of all the leading corporations within a 15-year period. education was not seen as something that was important but to create good personalities in society let's put it that way. and the few private schools that were disappear, we go to very monolithic system in education. it was so regulated -- i'll give you one example. when my daughter, about 11 years old -- it so happened there came

two new children into her school. and that led to the permission to add one more teacher, which led to the school saying, now your daughter and 10 more have to move to another school and we said no. in a number of rural areas pollses tried to close schools and you had uproars from various groups in society. i became 1988 chairman of one of the three remaining private schools. the government did whatever they could to close that school. i actually had to go to the supreme court twice when they sent letters telling the children that they weren't in a legal school. i said i don't need going to prison with that. but then the debate turned over

not only from the conservative side but from groups who were in the social democrats and the agrarian party. so 1992 was a society that, look, the same amount of money that it cost to go to state school, a municipal school you could go to an independent school and not only that. you could choose any school you like because there are many municipal schools. and then the government said, look, let's give a voucher that's 85% of the value and then you could ask parents to pay on top of that. and a few schools started. 1994 was the election. social democrats won. and they then had a real internal discussion, should they stop the system?

and the young generation of social democrats said, look, if we do that we will create one system for the rich and noble people, as you have in the states and in the u.k., not unitarian system for all swedes so it's better to make sure that no one has to pay for going to school so let's increase the voucher to 100% and then make sure that you're not allowed to charge one dollar extra. and that has been, since it was confirmed, 1994, led to a revolution, not only in swedish education but also starting the hill swedish society, where we are changing from the traditional welfare state into a state where you have security systems, you have welfare backed with individual choice. and swedes are much more

individualistic than would be the case. so let me give you a few facts about -- yeah, you told them what i'm doing. i'm now getting into this freedom in elderly care but that is for another topic. let me show how the school voucher system. today political consensus and it is a unique of combination of quality and free market. public funded and the same national core curriculum for all schools and independent schools have equal opportunities for the market. it's very easy to set up a school. and the children and the parents decide. and they can decide whatever they like. if they don't like the school in a month, they can take the money and go to another school. we're not to pick and choose students. we can't have a test one and say we'll take you instead of you.

and we cannot charge additional fees. and then some people ask, how the hell can you make money with that? i said anything the government does you cannot get a better result at 20% labor cost. so this system, the freedom explosion for less than 1%, '91 to 11% in compulsory schools. 50% goes to independent schools. 1 in 5 in swedish school is an independent school and 60% of an independent school goes to profit companies. all political parties except the communists accept profits. i told that to my conservative friends in the u.k. because they are also haven't understood profits. the independent schools are

outperforming public schools in results. and this is very important. if you see, you can have a system, 320 marks and all the public school have an average of 209 and all independent schools 229. it's substantially better and if you bring out 10 chain schools that are building up efficient back offices, our results are even higher. we are providing better educational result. and that's, of course, important to get them acceptance into sweden. and the recent study asked a few weeks ago from the public authority in sweden show the cost is about 20% lower cost per merit grade rating point in independent schools compared to public schools.

we are getting much more education for each vested swedish krona and what 238.10 in the public schools and 268.60 in independent schools. and students, parents and teachers set the section independent school performs better or much better. and when independent school have entered cities with public schools, it's has increased the quality of public schools. competition works. that's the overall system. let me then say a few words about kunskapsskolan because we have -- the reason it's the kunskapsskolan we have in a way disrupt the traditional educational system and found a

new way of combining modern technology with teacher participation. so our mission is to develop schools where students have clear goals and will stretch their boundaries and learn more than they possible. we are convinced anyone can do much more if they are given the right chance and the right inspiration to do that. so we replaced old structures of schools with more than techniques for coaching and empowering each individual student. you know, it's funny. to set the student in the center, that is not the tradition in educational policy. you don't look at each individual but where everyone knows that persons learn in different ways. some when they talk, some when they read, some when they write, some when they listen. and some know this much and some that much. you talk about classroom size, it's impossible if you have 20,

30 or 40 in the classroom, the teacher or whoever he or she will notice the number of them on the top and bottom with different learning skills. so we learn different personal schemes for each one. we make sure that we have all the curriculum on the computer system which means that our teachers spend at least 27 hours a week with students. it's actually about 30 hours and in swedish schools it's only 20 so we get much more teacher work with the students. they are not allowed to say i'm prepared for that lectures. because it's in the system. in private schools, sometimes teachers only spend about 10 hours a week with the students. when we looked in the u.k. system, we said my god, we could start a private school system and charge half the amount of money what it cost and provide

better indication at a much more efficient way. so this is a typical school of ours. fairly different from what it is in normal schools. and this has been made possible only because we have had competition. we opened our first school in the year 2000, now we've got about 10,000 pupils and a staff of about 800 and there you see our national grade, our average grade. it's close to 240. it's superior to all the averages. we have about the best results in sweden. and in some way, in the 10 years, in the first year i wasn't convinced what would happen but now i know you put each student in and focus and get in the system where they can do better, that is the reason for this. the u.k. came to us.

i have negotiated with the lord and lord hill four minutes of education and they will start two academies and actually -- and now the third one having invested about 60 million pounds in getting our way of education to london. in september this year, we will open in manhattan a charter school. we've got about 400 students waiting in line so we'll have a very interesting lottery this year. and we have a number of other countries that have come to us. and the reason for this is, of course, not the voucher system because we have voucher systems even though it meant in sweden but the success factor of the swedish model have led different, new ways of education

to appear. and there are a number of other changes. experimenting in new ways. when i went to school, i wasn't allowed to have a calculator. now all students have all information in their hand-held telephone. so of course it's revolution we'll going to educate people in the future. most countries have laws saying a classroom has to be this side and portals this size and i'm saying, well, what about how big should the faculty be and it's a ridiculous regulated down to small details which, of course, you have to get rid of and look at the important thing. what is the result? how much do the kids learn when they come in and how much will they know when they get done? in our school each teacher has got responsibility for 20 students and they sit 50 minutes every week in a personal one-to-one discussion, okay?

what are your goals, what have you done next week and i would claim that very few parents spend 50 minutes serious discussion with their children every week. so that's the driving force of coaching and developing the students. the profit -- and it's not -- you know, we have the same kinds of issues you have. u.k. was sweden 20 years ago. we have lots of discussion. i'm convinced that if you haven't gotten the profit incentive, it's much easier -- much more difficult to drive in ovation. but we have convinced ours that profit is not backed by evidence. we tell our head masters that to make sure children learn as much as possible. and they have a one restriction. they are only allowed to spend $95 out of $100 because we have to show the black figures.

but then you ask yourself how come that produces textbooks, produces of every equipment in the schools, that's for profit capitalists and those who build the schools are for profit and our social democratic leader -- she said in her debate in the socialists that i can't understand why it's allowed to make a profit when you build the schools but not around around the schools and i think that's a simple systems and if you don't build the schools you can make sure they will be much more expensive. i know that regulations -- i told the british minister, looking at the schools they are building for us, if we did this in sweden without all the regulations we would lower the costs by 40% immediately. no problem, whatsoever. you're overspending. the new swedish model -- the conclusion we are getting we are

getting more and more in the discussion of choice program in other sector, health care, elderly care and we are talking about private/public partnership. it's an old tradition we talked about a swedish model. and we are getting more and more people are saying, hey, maybe we should change the traditional responsibility where corporations made money and politicians to carry this money and use them for various welfare of the kid, about have new ways of working together in the same way as we have in the school sector. of course, politicians put together the core -- the curriculum. they make sure that they go up and inspect and don't have all those roads to regulations but the main thing is that you have a competitive system where the ultimate decision-making rests with the parents and with the students. and that's what we are now moving into none of elderly care and other things, too, which

changes the whole perception of the traditional swedish from cradle to grave, they'll go into something more completely. so that's why i say it's really -- the voucher revolution has an impact not only in the schools but on other things on how society has performed. thank you. [applause] >> thank you.

well, first of all, i want to thank the cato institute. let me introduce the debate that motivates this paper. the optical scale of operations of the schools is one of the most hotly debated issues in current educational policy reform discussions. larger schooling operations are much more efficiently than a smaller independent school. the proponents of this view also argue that the school networks promote sound institutional environment in member schools and also that the network will provide political benefit and committee in the school's community. but the critics of this view are concerned that the larger schooling operations will create hard to manage bureaucracies and they also worry that schooling operations are lower staff

motivation because powers and administrators and professionals far removed from the classroom. and because also because it lowers the motivation parent enrollment and promote more standardization and less innovation. and they claim the schools can improve the quality of education. this two opposite views have transferred school management. on the one hand it's the district korn sol days and founding for private schools. for example, in the u.s., the district consolidation is one of the most significant reforms in the last years. and also there is a growing number of private school networks, charter school and educational management organizations. and on the other hand, the smaller school initiative -- in this case larger schools are organized into smaller or autonomous schools. for example, the bill and

melinda gates foundation has invest $1 billion to have schools in the united states. but the empirical evidence of the ultimate size of a school is limited. because it's clouded by meth los angel methodological foundations and it's only found for public schoolz empirical findings of the smallest skilled programs in the united states are mixed. for example, the edison school -- the researchers found that the edison schools -- the performs of the schools varies and the higher schools by the gates foundation that there is wide variation of the quality of the schools.

so what is the objective of this paper? in this paper we tried to compare the achievement of private voucher independent, private voucher franchise and publicas schools and first this is my country and this is the most important reason but also it's important because in 1981 chile began funding public schools with vouchers and nonprofit is not required for private education institution and this is different from other countries because in other countries with private voucher schools, these schools are restricted to be nonprofit organizations. in the netherlands the private school vouchers are restricted to nonprofit. and this is not the first paper that compares private and public schools in chile and most of the study show a small school study.

this works because compare achievement across private schools according to their size. let me introduce the most important characteristic of the chilean educational system. during the '80s the military government in chile used to do the sweeping education reform package. first the government decentralized the administration of the public schools from the minister of education to the municipal government. and also introduced a school voucher system and on the public schools start to receive a parent-student voucher for every child. the private schools did not charge tuition also began to receive the same voucher and finally the private schools continued to operate without public funding. as a result, education has become increasingly privatized since the voucher reforms were introduced. you can see enrollment share in

public and private share. in 1979, 12% of chilean kids -- 12 students attend private schools that achieved some public subsidy and the other 7% attend the unsubsidized private schools and 80% of the schools attended private schools but by 2009, the picture is very different because the private voucher schools now had reached 48% of total enrollment and now the majority of chilean students are in private schools. what do we know about the size of schooling operations in chile? first, we know that private voucher school sector is essential a industry because 70% of these private voucher schools are independent schools that don't belong to our franchise. and the private voucher school

franchises account for about one-third of private voucher schools and enrollments. but there is a slight downward trend of the person who tell the students in the private voucher franchise schools in recent years and this drop explains in the student for profit and catholic franchise schools. and also we know that most of these franchises are fairly small in scale. for example, 50% of the private voucher franchise schools belong to franchises that have less than four schools. the for profit franchise schools spending varying degrees for private voucher schools. they are often controlled by a group of outside owners represent 42% of all franchise

schools in chile. and the independent for profit voucher schools most of which are owned and run by former public school teachers account for 88% of all independent schools. and on the other hand, the nonprofit voucher schools represent a significant percentage of these private voucher schools and this nonprofit voucher schools which includes catholic, protestant and nonsecular schools. and now i will present empirical strategy of our paper. and this paper we hypothesize that student achievement can be modeled as a function of student socioeconomic characters. and we had a typical student in each school category. and measured the difference in

achievement between two school categories with prediction from one another. and also it's a technical fact. but a student attending public schools can be different in socioeconomic characteristics from the student attending a public school. that comes from chile's national standardized test and the independent we have is student demographics and student gender and schooling and household income and the number of books in the house and also student peer information which is the average of the individual characteristic of the students across the -- in a given classroom, in the classroom of the student. now i will present the most significant findings and results

of this paper. in this graph you can see the difference between the school types and private voucher independent schools which is the reference category. and for the student with the average characteristics of the private voucher independent school student and the first panel of the graph shows an adjusted difference. in other words, the test score gap between public schools and private voucher independent schools and private voucher franchise schools and independent schools but before comp patrolling for all independent and forced selection. and the subsequent show the gap but after controlling for the socioeconomic characteristic of the students of the peer groups and for selection bias. and the scores are standardized.

and the empirical results shows that private voucher in independent schools outperformed public schools. but the same uncorrect estimates also shows that the private voucher franchise school outperformed private voucher independent schools. but the question is what happens when we control for the independent selection bias? well, after we have private franchise effect and this is the most important finding of this paper because this results means that the private voucher franchise school advantage is not related to the socioeconomic characteristic of the students, of the peer groups or for selection bias. but this is different in the case of the bub schools and private voucher independent

schools the score got because in this case there is not enough significance between public and private voucher of independent schools. in other words, after comptrolling there is no significant difference to this kind of school. so these results provide some evidence of the significance of this private school. and is there an optical side of the franchise? and we found after comtrolling for the private variables that schools that belong to larger networks or four or more schools outperformed the schools that belonged to smaller networks of two or three schools. and to prove this finding

further, but after with the religious affiliation of the school because previous results from chile and in the united states has demonstrated that catholic schools outperform other private schools. but the good news is that our results don't change with this control and this suggests that the positive franchise school advantage is not related to the religious affiliation of these schools. and also we ran our model with other data and this shows our results are consistent over time. well, this is the summary of the main findings of the paper. first, the private voucher franchise school outperformed compared to voucher independent school. second, that private voucher independent schools produce similar test scores as equal as public schools. and third, that the larger private school franchises outperformed smaller franchises.

and most important is that this result is consistent over time and after comptrolling for the religious effect of the school. what are some explanation for this positive franchise effect? this positive franchise effect may be explained by the substantial benefits of a scale of educational professionals, bulk purchases and the reduced cost implementation of innovations. and larger networks may be likely to benefit from access to credit and private investment than the small independent private schools and also being embedded within a larger organization, have a transection between the different educational agents.

however, before holding these results up, we need more information about what are the factors that the thainfluence a school owner to establish a franchise? because, for example, high-achieving schools may be more likely to establish a franchise or join a franchise than low quality schools. and such causal effect is a topic for future research and we need more information. this is a conclusion of the paper because in terms of public policy, we found that more information is needed about these factors that influence the establishment of franchises. for example, we need to know how profitable our private voucher school networks and also we need to know how risky is this industry for entrepreneurs? and why? well, because this information is key to the public policy that try to encourage the networking

of the schools but the results of this paper offer some insights for other countries on a school voucher, the scale of operation of the schools and benefits of the education on management organizations. but the good news is that our results suggest that those who try to make promises for the schools establish have the potential for increasing educational outcomes. thank you for your attention. [applause] >> is there anyone who can tell me have sarah speak from her microphone at her desk? why don't you try speaking into it and see if it's on now. >> hello? >> great. >> i'm always really interested

in how research into schools and school districts and the way schools operate in other countries reflects back. and this is particularly interesting in part because one of the big criticisms against looking at international school research is that, well, that's fine but how is it going to work here? and we will have very shortly a perfect experiment in how well the swedish model transfers over to the united states with all of its very different approaches to vouchers and to charter schools and all of that stuff. and both of of the models were really interesting and certainly the research on them is

intriguing. i agree with you that it seems very early research. i'll start with the chile report. i was intrigued by the way that the franchise schools or chain schools were different in how they performed compared to both public and other independent. and it was interesting to me that there was very little discussion of what at the school looked different. i know that certainly wasn't the topic of your report but i hope it's the topic of the future because it makes a huge

difference for us in using that as a model. if the difference is that these schools have certain efficiencies or differences and more experimental teaching strategies then those can be incredibly powerful and will be very easy to make a case for moving them over here. it's a little less so, i think, if the fact that these multiple schools are the natural result of competition. i know that sounds odd at the cato institute, but if you think about it, the vast proportion of independent schools are -- i mean, the vast proportion of the voucher private schools as opposed to public are these

independent mom and pop shops. and you've got a small cohort of very good schools that if they have gotten there by being able to franchise out, then we have to look of at what are the policies that will prevent it from being a vast majority of experimental designs that mostly fail and a small percentage of very good models that work for the students that they -- that are there. that, i think, would be very hard to sell in the united states because parents usually can't switch schools the day after they decide they don't like them.

and that means you've got a lot of kids waiting for -- the same way we have lottery for charter schools and kids schools and your own charter school now. and so being able to transfer the good things about the school and understand why these particular chains have done something educationally different as opposed to just the sort of general small slice out of a very large pool, that will be really interesting to see. i'm really interested in the swedish model coming here and particularly because it will -- it will be interesting to see how that works in a market where

the costs aren't quite controlled as much. certainly the -- i'm sorry. the curriculum and standards will be the same within new york, but even there, curriculum from district to district and sometimes school to school could be fairly different. and one of my major questions to you is how are you changing that model to deal with the differences in the way vouchers and charters and things of that work in sweden versus here? i'd also be interested to see how even in your home country you deal with the differences in

initial cost if you have the same voucher amount for every student. and you are not allowed to charge on top of that and students can leave very early so you don't necessarily have the most stable set amount. how do you manage costs for the differences between a student who has severe learning disabilities or is an immigrant student and doesn't speak the language or is very poor and has very little family support -- those, at least in the u.s., researchers has shown tend to cost more. so what i'm wondering is how that works? so i actually go first to you for some of those questions. i don't like speaking a lot in

public. so i will be going to the audience with questions as soon as possible. >> please, go ahead. thanks. >> i should respond to that. you know, the swedish system is that the voucher varies from municipality to municipality to about $8,000 to $11,000. we take it all into the company and then we have schools in some are tough areas and some other areas. we have one school where we have got 60% immigrants, probably 20% from iraq. we have more immigrants in iraq in one city in stockholm than you have in the whole united states. that was the school that i showed to bush two years ago, and how do you get it to function? we have avoided going into rich areas. that was a decision from the

beginning. i went into blue collar workers area and not the others. but i think the main -- so we have -- of course, we spend more resources in those areas than we would in the company and there is a possibility to get additional grants for very specific cases. and we cannot refuse to accept -- we have lots of students in wheelchairs and lots of disabilities. if they applied to us, we have to accept them. and we very much like to accept them, too. as our learning model having everything on the computer, making sure that you can work from home, the parents are enrolled and it makes it easier for those that really learn more. but if i get back to the -- about chain schools, i think the

reason why we have succeeded is that we are measuring everything. you know, we have 35 schools. you get the 5 from the headmaster that we give as good of results as possible. and we go so far that we look at when a teacher to the students, how much did they know when they start and how much do they know a year after? and then, of course, we try to make sure that teachers that are better in other careers pursue other careers. we probably have five 25 heads of schools if they don't perform. that's no excuse. and we have a very close cooperation with trade union. when we start the school we made an agreement 40 hours a week that's normal. and there's part of the salary goes to those increase it

depends how well the teacher performs with his other her group. but what is the value added? but that's something very swedish to have this pragmatic corporation attitude but the overall conclusions that i can draw everywhere you have to compare, you have to measure, you have to make sure that you keep control, what is the quality? and your research was extremely interesting and i think it will inspire in sweden to look at the 25% sector of chain schools that are expanding. how do you change into new schools? it's not very easy. it's a very interesting part of the thing and i'm fascinating

that cities, at least in sweden, that those that are in the public sector that they do not try to run their schools as a chain of schools. but independent schools and independent school board with parents here and parents there, lots of nonprofessionals who don't understand -- they believe they know about education but they are not professional about education and i think that's a worldwide way or handling education when you get change you measure and you compare and you say i can't. they are doing better. let's do it that way, too. >> i just had one question for humberto before i forget as it's increasingly likely as i get older. you mentioned in the green room earlier that the people who found the independent private schools, the single mom and pop private schools are different a bit from the people who run the

larger franchises. and could you talk about that? >> i will speak in spanish, please. [speaking in native tongue] [inaudible] >> most people that run the private independent schools are former public teachers that now they cover their schools and they're running it. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: whereas, the chain schools belong mostly like 50% to networks like foundations, religious foundations, and some other nonprofit foundations. [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: the other for-profit chain networks but they are only like 50% of the total. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: yeah. the main difference between the private independent schools and the chain school are the people who run the private independent schools are former professors that usually have far less resources than the other -- the chain schools. and they come from social strata that usually is lower and they don't have the management skills that the other schools have, and that's why the results show that independent private schools don't perform that much more different than private schools. >> did you have any other questions that you wanted to ask, sarah, or do you want to go to the audience? >> a little bit. >> yeah. it was one thing i did not respond to was how we -- when we convert and go to the u.k. -- it's very interesting. the delegation from the united

kingdom come to sweden because personal education is very much discussed. ..

>> so step-by-step we are getting them into the new mode. and in the states we have probably 15 teachers of various kinds helping to transform what we have done into the curriculum in new york. and this is to me if i look longer-term as i said in the global world, i say it's exciting for all those children, regardless if they are in stockholm or london or new york, or whatever, can connect each other and be part of the same network. that's the revolution i believe it's happening in education in the next 25 years. >> this is a question for both of you. are there any incentives or procedures in place in either of your countries to support

successful models and help them expand faster? >> no. if we are successful we get more students. and so it's very much market oriented your. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: there's no public policy whatsoever in chile to incentivize the change in schools. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: there are

several proposals to make it easier for schools to open up and have the backing of change, and that will make it easier to have development of change eventually. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: the problem is we don't have enough information to find out why schools form change. it's kind of difficult to see how you can actually sympathize them. >> in the united states we have two separate areas of school choice when people talk about school choice. one is the voucher system that

is giving someone money to go to whatever school they want. and the other, and that can be to for-profit commercial, it can be to nonprofit similar to what seems like some of the chains are run by religious or other foundations. or we have the charter site, which is still publicly run but not under the auspices of the school district your and i was interested that when you came over to the united states, you chose a charter rather than starting a private school. and as one if you could say why you decided to do that, and for both of you, how close do you think you're voucher system in your home countries are to

straight private schools as we have in the united states versus charter schools? >> well, the main reason for me coming from sweden, and it started already in u.k. because we made a study to start private schools. and we saw where we could compete very efficient way when we saw the overpayments to the schools, compared the results. but when the minister came and said hey, can't you go into academy program, which is in the maintained sector and it is financed by the government, we saw that as more interesting. but from a philosophical view, i think i am working on making sure bring education for 95% of the children that are not the top five or the rich and noble.

they cannot always manage. so we look the same in the states, but how we do do that. here in the short term model because you have still not realized which, of course, will happen in the states, too, that we should be able to run for-profit company without going through all this bureaucracy here but that's where we are now. so that's where we are. our aim is now to build a flagship school and show our educational and do that in u.k. and do it here, and with that that would help to change the system and make more realize that look, it's good to have competitors and it's okay that you can make a profit if you provide better education. >> i have a follow-up on that actually. because they're so must interest in scaling it could schools, it's all across the u.s., and for the past 10 years it's been

charter schools that have been the approach people of most look to for have to scale of excellence. and there are some great charter school networks that most people and a lot of independent researchers have found do a really good job, high-performing, and it has grown substantially over time. so is this a model in and of itself for replicating excellence? and the way that kid has grown is by getting philanthropic contribution. so donors have given money to the kip organization to replicate itself around the country. is that a model where people just give money and hope that the school expands by have no expectation of a return on investment that can produce the same effects we see in other fields where the people are giving money to expand and enterprise are doing it with an expectation that they will get their money back. and i wanted to find out

empirically, and so what i'm doing right now is a study in which i've looked at the performance of all 70 or so charter school networks operating in california, including kip and 69 or so others. and i've got data on the performance from a huge range of california state tests. i've also collected data on how much grant funding each of those charter school networks has received. so we can do a correlation between grant funding and performance. and if it's a high positive number then maybe that's a viable model. if it's not, then maybe it's not. this isn't going to be the definitive subject but at least it's an interesting start. what i find find, this is still preliminary, the paper will not come out for a couple of months, what i find so far is that the correlation between grant funding and performance is 0.07 which is about as close to zero as you ever see because there is usually a random correlation between things.

there's almost exactly no correlation between the grant funding charting the receipt and how they perform. just for fun, this is my wife's idea. i did a correlation between the number of letters in the school's name or the charter networks name and their performance. that's minus point tonight. it is negative so shorter is better. and it four times stronger than the relationship between grant funding and performance. so this makes me skeptical about model, but again, it's pretty preliminary work so we will have to see. >> did you have any other questions? >> i would like to do what they say. >> let's open it up to the audience. we have microphones i think circulating? right here at the right at the top. >> hello. i met eugene -- i met eugene a. i think it's important that

these discussions. i do wish that it might be more balanced in terms of some of the information. i have some questions based on my reading about these two systems. and i want to go to performance. first of all, sweden has gone down since 2000, and i read workplace three times as fast as any other country in terms of its reading scores on pisa. also gone down in mouth between 2006 -- science, 2006, 2009. and it would seem to indicate that there might be something wrong with this particular reform. in the chilly? no, yeah, the comparisons from what i read, you're right. they don't show much of a difference. but when you go to the individual students within the schools, you will find that the private voucher students are doing considerably better than the public. and this may be due to

socioeconomic choice. in fact, my hypothesis is we're really talking about neighborhood schools here and that what you're getting is intensified stratification. all the research i've seen says that. you're not getting a true measure of what the schools are doing. so i would like to know what you think about some of that, and hopefully cato will have some other views on this panel the next time. thank you. >> i think it's correct it has gone down at this very much discussed. at the same time, it's a question that the independent schools are performing much better than the rest of the schools. and its -- the fact that peace has gone down, pisa is very high in finland. i would also question peace a, the correct measurement of everything. there are many other aspects when you develop young people.

so when you get into the swedish discussion i think it's the consensus that the competition and the fact that you have large independent sector has in the hope to come better. but we have at the same time debate. when i started, i would not allow to measure students in a way that you get graded because that was impossible in sweden. and that's why we talk about the black and blue and the red slope. because that's okay. so we are still -- that's now being changed into new law, that's the agreement that came last year. that means that we can give feedback to all the students. so the larger evolution, it's one part, wider change of the whole swedish system where you require more results than you

did in the old system. >> just one follow up on finland and pisa an international testing. there is a wide acceptance that pisa is quite different from the other most well-known international test. while finland has consistently performed, first, second, third on trinity for the past several administrations of the test, the last time finland took the 10 different test, same subjects, it perform between 10th and 14th. depending on the subject. and perhaps coincidentally finland no longer takes the 10th. they only take a pisa, the one they do really well on and maybe that's just pure coincidence but i'm not entirely sure. we had a question down your in the front as well. >> answer the question. [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: like what happened in sweden in chile there to distortions to the voucher. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: firstly, the families can charge an additional charge -- the schools can charge additional fee to parents for schools. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: even though the selection of students has been bad recently, private schools have still managed to do that through different ways.

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: research has shown that that actually has an impact because private schools can charge an additional fee to parents, and they can select from the highest spread of economic strategy of students. that has an impact on -- whereas -- that has an impact on the results. [speaking in native tongue]

>> translator: there is actually some counterintuitive results because if you look at catholic schools because of their mission, he was supposed that they have people from lower income strata. but the results show that they actually have people from higher incomes strapped, even more than for-profit schools. >> this is something that we discussed in the green room before coming out, and it's actually i think also partly the result of the way the voucher system is designed in chile. the way the funding system is designed in the chile. in addition to the voucher,

public schools can receive some additional funding. over all it's not a large amount of funding but it is concentrated on low-income schools and low income students. and so from the paris perspective, if you're in a low income area and you yourself are in a low income family, you can choose between a private school that has a voucher amount to spend on your chart and a public school that has a voucher amount plus-up to 20, 30% of additional funding. and it's a pretty big incentive for parents to choose the public schools and makes it easier for the public school to offer a better education. >> we had a question up front. >> hello. my name is craig olson. i'd like to ask both how free are your independent schools and/or franchise or private schools as you call it in chile

to set compensation and benefits for teachers and other employees of the school system? or, i notice that emilsson, june noticed the reunion so is that a constraint? and then for mr. emilsson, if the independent schools in sweden are doing so well as you pointed out, why then are barely one in 10 of the 11 -- the seven to 16-year-olds enrolled, nine of 10 still in public schools? >> well, let's take the second first. you know, some rural areas up to 50% already now. if you say it's only your lost 10, 12 years, it really has taken off and expanding rapidly

now. the key constraint for opening more schools is difficult to find locations. so it will continue to grow rapidly. yes, we have made a collective agreement with a trade union. and, of course, they will accept that we can increase salaries as we like, but we did exactly the same amount of money as the other schools get. so it's not very easy to increase, but we have fewer teachers, and we have expanded top salaries for a number of, there's a career rare opportunity and that is with teachers union. when i talk to teachers unions here and in united kingdom, they have very surprised that the teachers union in sweden are as they are, but they are. and i think the reason for this is before the voucher evolution,

that was based only one import. and now they have, it's also good for teachers to have competing possibilities. so that has also changed the climate. and you will in the next coming 10 years see an increase of compensation for good teachers, because more are, as mckinsey studies show, they have the best teachers and there's enormous difference between those that do really good and those that really should do something else. and there we have a good system in sweden to making sure that those should pursue alternative careers get that opportunity. >> benefits come into the same. is very standardized in sweden. extremely standardized. [inaudible] >> i have to trade union members on the board of the company. [inaudible]

>> that's also low in sweden. so the trade unions are represented on the board of the company. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: like what happens in sweden in other countries, large public sectors come in chile there's a stark difference between what happens with teachers in the public sector and teachers and the private sector. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: in the public sector it's very similar what happens in sweden, and there's even a council of teachers that is collected with a government.

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: the private sector, little regulations on teachers. i mean, anybody can be a teacher. and there is -- there are many more regulations that exceed this, many more ways and so on. on anything else, there's a lot of flexibility, private schools when it comes to hiring and salaries and so on. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: the difference

has created a big debate now in chile because the current government has passed a law that allows the directors of each school to fire up to 5% of the worst performing teachers. public schools. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: this has created a lot of anger from the public sector, teacher unions.

but he believes the purpose of the voucher is to instill competition. and if you've handicap public schools and the directors can fire back performing teachers, been there in a pretty bad position to compete, and so this reform he thinks is quite appropriate to ask sal the system. >> do we have other questions? [inaudible] >> what kind of benefits? [inaudible] [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] private school teachers are like any other private sector

employees so the same regulations that apply to any other company, private companies applies to a private teachers, including health benefits, social security and so on. >> we have a question on the aisle here. >> thank you. the public education hearing has faced i did a tremendous amount of resistance to vouchers and charter schools even though they're gradually entering into our public education system. how do you deal with, or how as you move in a new york, you have to deal with teachers unions, education unions, administrative staff. i think like any city and united states says we don't need more money for our school system, and there's a terminus amount of money being used in

administrative costs. and i've worked in two different school systems here in the united states. so how do you address those issues when it comes to vouchers and charter schools, the fact that you're able to get rid of bad teachers and then unions who is going to come and say no? i think the money issue, the funding and the administrators, they spend so much money and it doesn't go to the classroom, how do you deal with and work with the and the unions? the resistance here to change is i think really big issue. thank you. >> i would just say we've been very much welcomed, and i have been amazed in new york with all the support we have going on from the city of new york, that can't you show how you could take your motive education your.

of course, is easy. we are starting one school with 200 students to start with, and it sort of an example. so i think we're probably seen as an experiment. we are not turning the whole system upside down. that made be one reason, but at the same time i've got enormous support from people that say hey, this is interesting, maybe we can use this here, too. so, basically i'm very much more positive than when i hear some of my friends here talking about how difficult it is. you know, yes, it will work. >> and i just had one question about the way that it worked in sweden. isn't the case that there was tremendous resistance to the idea of a voucher program nationwide, and that was only because a party was elected that

was more free market oriented and implemented this program. and it was only after people saw it -- >> no, it came because people were fed up with the schools. they were no good. you see, i started for schools in the year 2000, and i got 900 students year one. in a brand-new school, no track record whatsoever. they did not come to me because they believed i had a better education or model. they came to me because they knew i was an alternative. i think that was -- when you go deep down in a in the system and say hey, we have to change this, and i think there are some places in the states where people have realized that we need to try something new. >> i think we have time for another question. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: to reply about

the private sector, private schools have found in chile. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: interesting thing about the introduction of the voucher system in chile is an happen in a moment in the country's history where debate pretty much wasn't allowed. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: there was no political debate. it just happened. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: the debate back in the 1980s in chile about education wasn't about quality,

but about the coverage of the education throughout the country. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: it wasn't until the '90s when coverage reached the level of developed countries. there was more on the quality of education that is taking place in chile right now. >> translator:[speaking in nati] >> translator: so the debate

right now is between public and private schools, and public schools feel that there any disadvantage because of the regulations that we discussed previously. and there are even some extreme views that are proposing to curtail the expansion of private schools and the creation of private schools. and even they claim the lowest performing private school should be closed down altogether. [inaudible] >> leaving at a very important part of the picture, is the payment, the taxpayer dollars that come for voucher or charter schools along with any private dollars. so public-private partnership is fine, but what about the funding

for these voucher schools, or charter schools still come from the public. i think the resistance here is public schools don't want to have to put out any money for charter schools, and certainly don't want to put out anything to give a voucher. that money has to come from someone. nothing is free, even in sweden or chile. there has to be taxpayer dollars. money has to come somewhere. from a private partnership could be great, but the public pays and the private reach the benefits. that i think is important issue. thank you. >> a substantial amount of all taxpayers money is being used to buy services for corporations that are being run for a profit. i suppose also the states, whatever you spend when you build houses or whatever you do is being done by private companies we run for profit. so the question is, and that's a

debate, how do we get as much as possible for the taxpayers? how do we get more efficient and how are we going to use that fact to get more education for each dollar we put in? that i think we see more and more very clear signs that the same models use in other kinds of activities of society, running as corporations that must make a profit, also makes sense in education. >> we have time for one more -- go ahead. >> i noticed that the place we have larger market share is not in what we think of as k-12. it's really and i guess what would be almost equivalent to our community college system, in the 16-18. could you talk a little bit about -- >> basically restart when the children are 11, 12 years old.

we have been looking at going down to six-year-old children but it's a completely different market situation because parents normally want to have a school close where they live. when you go 11, 12, they can travel a bit and you'd get a kind of mixed so that's why we have focused there. that we are looking at them. we probably take a step forward to develop all education, more than further deliver a just. because i haven't talked so much, but it's tremendous system that you of all the curriculum. you don't need to have additional books. i saw today that, it's a revolution we are going through now. that's also a revolution that means that you don't learn in traditional classroom situation, many more situations.

i don't think we have any final responses of that. we are trying to develop and use the creativity and the fact that we know that my grandchildren are better than i am, and the only think i know it will change dramatically. >> i'm getting the signal that we have to wrap it up now, i'm afraid. so i will thank you all again very much for coming out today. it was really wonderful. thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] very much for coming out today. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] we will be taking you live at 2 p.m. eastern to the white house for a briefing with press secretary robert gibbs. they spoke to the press afterwards. you can see this briefing online at c-span.org. in this portion of the briefing secretary clinton answers questions about the issues in egypt.

>> good morning. i am very pleased to be here with vice president of columbia. on his first visit to washington as vice president. before discussing the important matters that were part of our meeting, i would like to say something about the unfolding events in egypt. we continue to monitor the situation very closely. we are deeply concerned about the use of violence by egyptian police and security forces against protesters. and we call on the egyptian government to do everything in its power to restrain the security forces. at the same time, protesters should also refrain from violence and express themselves

peacefully. as we have repeatedly said, we support the universal human rights of the egyptian people. including the right to freedom of expression, association, and have assembly. we urge the egyptian authority to allow peaceful protests, and to reverse the unprecedented steps it has taken to cut off communications. these protests underscore that there are deep grievances within egyptian society. and the egyptian government needs to understand that violence will not make these grievances go away. as president obama said yesterday, reform is absolutely critical to the well being of egypt. egypt has long been an important

partner of the united states on a range of regional issues. as a partner, we strongly believe that the egyptian government needs to engage immediately with the egyptian people in implementing needed economic, political, and social reform. we continue to raise with the egyptian government as we do with other governments in the region the imperative for reform. and greater openness and participation to provide a better future for all. we want to partner with the egyptian people and their government to realize their aspirations, to live in a democratic society that respects basic human rights. when i was recently in the region, i met with a wide range

of civil society groups, and i heard from them about ideas they have that would improve their countries. the people of the middle east, like people everywhere, are seeking a chance to contribute and to have a role in the decisions that will shape their lives. as i said in doha, leaders need to respond to these aspirations, and to help build that better future for all. they need to view civil society as their partner, not as a threat. now, there is a great deal of concern also in our government, mr. vice president, about the

mining disaster that killed 21 miners in colombia. and we'll have our translator translate these remarks about olympia as we go along. i know that presidenpresident santos cut short to join the families of these victims. and i would like the people of colombia to know they are in the thoughts and prayers of all americans, not just for the mining tragedy, but for the terrible flooding that in the past two months has claimed more than 300 lives, affected more than 2 million people, and incurred billions of dollars in reconstruction and cleanup costs. [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> the vice president and i had a very productive, wide-ranging discussion on many important

issues, and we reaffirmed the resilient enduring partnership and friendship between our peoples. [speaking in native tongue] >> we share common values and i respect for democratic governance, the rule of law and self-determination. [speaking in native tongue] >> and the united states have stood with colombia for more than a decade, as they take on security challenges. [speaking in native tongue]

>> we've made considerable progress together, but we have more work to do on security and other issues. [speaking in native tongue] >> that is why we are hosting the second round of the u.s.-colombia high level partnership dialogue in march, where we will cover so many of these issues. [speaking in native tongue] >> we are committed to a very broad discussion of issues from sustainable energy to human rights. [speaking in native tongue]

>> and as president obama said in a state of the union address, we are committed to a successful conclusion and ratification of the u.s.-colombia in trade agreements. [speaking in native tongue] >> and i look forward to working with the vice president and members of the colombian government to bring that result about. [speaking in native tongue] >> and i also commended the vice president and the santos administration for the progress that is being made on resolving long-term disputes having to do

with displaced people in the country, and reaching out to civil society to add their voices to a national conversation about human rights and labor rights. [speaking in native tongue] >> and i want to thank colombia for their assistance to other countries in the fight against drug traffickers and criminal organizations. [speaking in native tongue] >> their assistance to the

people of haiti and afghanistan, and in so many ways, the leadership that colombia is showing in helping to solve ethical issues. [speaking in native tongue] >> we look forward to continuing in close cooperation, mr. vice president. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: thank you so much, hillary clinton. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator:

>> translator: i want to say on behalf of the government of colombia and very especially on behalf of president santos, i would like to express our thanks to you, mrs. clinton, anti-president obama for the solitary of your government and your people, to the people of colombia on the occasion of the recent floods and in particular the recent mining tragedy which has caused 21 lives and left several injured in our country. [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: and in our broad reaching discussion today, we have agreed among other things to work together to defend fundamental rights of humankind. the human rights that affect all of us, in particular, labor groups, indigenous groups, women's groups and others. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: and we have

also agreed to work and cooperate with all countries to combat organized crime, in particular transnational crime which includes drug trafficking, which is -- which attacks our democracy. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: in our dialogue, we have expressed our great lives and political will of the united states government, any particular president obama

and secretary clinton, to find all paths necessary to achieve ratification of the free trade agreement between colombia and the united states. it is an agreement that helps the people and the government of colombia, and it also helps the people and government of the united states. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: and we also greatly appreciate the willingness of the u.s. government and the u.s. congress

to extend the trade preferences act, not just to the region but to columbus in particular. this is a sign of great solitary at a time when we are busy with the reconstruction of our country after the devastating floods. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: and we also agree to redouble our joint efforts along with secretary clinton and president santos regarding haiti, to support the people of haiti in the quest to elect freely and fairly their own leaders.

[speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: and we will consolidate our high level dialogue, a dialogue that we began last year between the united states and colombia. this has been headed by secretary clinton. we will be strengthening our program, to discuss issues ranging from all kinds of progress and democracy, human rights, new technology, energy, and also one we added after i

dialogue today, the environment. [speaking in native tongue] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: and and on behaf of the government of colombia, president santos and the people of colombia, i want to thank you very much for recognizing the progress of colombia has made as a developing country to consolidate itself in a monastery in combating corruption, violence and impunity and in upholding human rights.

stick yes, that if secretary. excuse me, i've to by rather direct questions to ask. the first, is president mubarak finished? the second, are you at this point condemning the violent crackdown against protesters? >> well, i think we have an answering those concerns for quite some time, and as president obama suggested a very clearly, and as i said in doha, it is absolutely vital for egypt to embrace reform, to or not just its long-term stability, but also the progress and prosperity that its people richly deserve. now, egypt has been a strong partner of the united states on a range of regional and strategic interests. and as a partner, we believe strongly and have expressed this

consistently that the egyptian government needs to engage with the egyptian people in implementing needed political, economic and social reform. we have consistently raised this with the egyptian government over many years. we also have raised it with other governments in the region. and there is a constant concern about the need for greater openness, greater participation on the part of the people, particularly young people, which is something i was very clear about in doha. and we want to continue to partner with the egyptian government and the egyptian people. now, what will eventually happen in egypt is at two egyptians. but it is important for us to make very clear that as a partner of egypt, we are urging

that there be a restraint on the part of the security forces. they are not a rush -- there not be a rush to impose very strict measures that would be violent, and that could be a dialogue between the government and the people of egypt. at the same time we also would urge the protesters to engage in peaceful protest, which they have every right to do. and the deeper grievances that they are raising deserve to be addressed. not the real question we are focused on is how can we support a better future for the people of egypt, that, you know,

respond to their aspirations? and as i've said before and as the president has also said, the egyptian government has a real opportunity in the face of this very clear demonstration of opposition to begin a process that will truly respond to the aspiration of the people of egypt. we think that moment needs to be seized, and we are hoping it is. >> madam secretary, to point. the first one is vice president guards on past two days ago, the free trade agreement with all due respect, is the obama administration going to do that, yes or no? >> yes. >> this year? >> yes objects. we have an agreement.

there are still negotiations taking place. and that's the vice president and i discussed, when we have an agreed upon text, we will as quickly as possible send it to the congress. [inaudible] >> it is not yet in the form of agreement that we have been discussing with our colombian counterparts. they know what we need to do in order to get a successful outcome. we do want to send an agreement just for the sake of sending an agreement. we want to send an agreement and get it passed. ..

[speaking spanish] [speaking spanish] >> translator: i want to stress what is so important and basic. [speaking spanish]

>> translator: i want to point >> we will take you for remarks from press secretary robert gibbs who will address the section of -- situation in

egypt. this will be delayed but we will bring it to u.s. soon as it gets underway on c-span2. we will look at president obama's efforts to reduce the size of the federal government from this morning's washington journal. >> host: dr. paul light was that case university in midtown manhattan. he was that new york university where he teaches public service and has expertise in the federal work force. thanks for being here. >> guest: thanks for to see you. >> host: let's talk about the size of the federal workforce. in the past year there has been some research. i saw a different statistics. what is your best estimate of how many federal workers there are in the u.s. today. >> guest: we are dealing with estimates. the community will not tell us. they consider the number of workers to be proprietary information and every time we roll out an estimate they

criticize and i always say what is your estimate? they say we don't have one or won't release it. i think we might have 7 to eight million contractors working for the federal government, two thirds of which deliver services. everything from computer programming to management analysis and consulting, all the way down the hierarchy to security and serving food in the federal cafeterias. we have a large work force there, another three million folks who get their pay checks in part from the federal government under ground. those are highway construction grounds and sewage treatment facility construction grounds, research at universities and so on and so forth. let's put it at ten million and ask the federal civil service about two million, two.1 million and in the military we are up to

fourteen million and if you really want to go big you throw in the number of state and local employees who work for the federal government under unfunded mandates. we don't now how many there are but let's say that is fourteen million or four million. getting pretty large. as large as the manufacturing sector. federal employees are just the tip of the iceberg. we don't talk much about freezing or reducing the number of contractors. >> we will stay with that, doesn't include the state and local. the federal work force has grown since 1999, eleven million and that is wrong on the bottom. the next is 2002, 12.1 million contractors. so the numbers keep going up.

why do they keep going up? >> guest: we keep buying labor from the private sector. we don't like to increase the number of federal employees. it looks bad to the american public. instead of increasing the number of civil service employees, that has gone up by 300,000. it zoom up under bush because of heavy spending on national security post 9/11. we bought a lot of stuff for the iraq war. we build military bases, the procurement budget in washington has been going up and that is where you get the purchase of labour with procurements budget, is almost entirely labor. that is where these numbers really rise. >> host: i want to involve you in this discussion of the size of a federal work force and what

you think is appropriate. do you think you are getting too much service from the federal government? too many people employed at the public workforce as opposed to the private sector, republicans 737-0001 and independents, 0205. we have already added a line for federal workers. the federal bureaucracy as well, if we can put that on the air it is 6280124. we will get that on their so as our conversation progresses federal workers will have an opportunity to join us. let's get to some video. president obama in the state of the union tuesday night. >> we live and do business in the information age.

it happened in the age of black-and-white tv. there are 12 different agencies that deal with exports. there are five different agencies that deal with housing policies. then there is my favorite example. the interior department is in charge of salmon in fresh water but the commerce department handles them in salt water. it gets even more complicated once they are smoked. [laughter] [applause] we have made great strides using technology and getting rid of waste. veterans can our download their electronic medical records at the click of a mouse. we're selling acres of office space that hasn't been used in

years and we will cut for red tape to get rid of more. we need to think bigger. in the coming months my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serve the goal of a more competitive america. >> host: i would like to play an earlier clip, 1999, vice president al gore. >> reinvention and reform is not a way to scale back our ambition or tighten our belts for its own sake as a sacrifice for first principle. it is a recognition of this fundamental truth. we cannot chase our highest ideals unless they are grounded in workable, practical, responsible self governance. we need governments that are as

flexible, as dynamic, as focused on serving their customers as the best private companies around world. we need to adopt the best management techniques from the private sector to create governments that are fully prepared for the challenges of the information age. >> host: administrations for many a decade are talking about restructuring and right sizing the federal government but the numbers we show say the number of peaks going up. what is the challenge here? >> guest: al gore was right. george w. bush made an effort. richard nixon did. lyndon johnson did. every president is promising a better government but it is quite hard to do. i was delighted that president obama mentioned reorganization the other night. about time he stepped into the conversation. but let's be serious about what

a real overhaul of the federal government would mean. he talks about a real overhaul dating back to the 1950s. my dad was in auto parts and a couple friends whose parents were in auto parts and when somebody comes in for an overhaul not talking about changing spark plugs and fooling the engine and doing it talk to bottom job. the president is right to look at consolidation but he has to expand the agenda. he has to flatten the hierarchy and getting to some of the principles that our board listened but getting hard for a statutory change. if he doesn't step up to the plate, the house republicans will be doing it and it will be a lot more damaging to how well government works. >> host: ned the republican, you are on the air. >> caller: i want to talk about employees and salaries.

the thing is they have blown out in terms of numbers. number 2, federal employees' salaries, about 60% more than the private sector. a private sector should be -- that is the trouble with the government now. we are in trouble because of the fact that federal employees, and so on and so forth are much more paid highly. very high and expensive. that is why they are in budgetary trouble. >> host: when you look across the united states, public-sector employees salaries compared to

the private sector. >> what republicans have been doing is the feds are more highly paid and on average than the private sector but there is a distribution in their and the high end of the salary scale to senior managers. turns out they are underpaid compared to the private sector. at the middle and at the bottom there is a lot of variation in the salary structure. people in favor of the current salary structure will tell you federal employees are more agitated, more seasoned which is code word for older. question is whether we need more educated, more seasoned workers in the job. that is a fair comparison and it is a difficult comparison to make and we haven't done a good job doing that. president obama imposed a salary

freeze but republicans in the house snipped out the problem. he did not impose a freeze on automatic pay increases due to time on the job and that has got to be part of it. president obama is going to have to get on that as part of his reorganization plan. >> host: you are the on the air with dr. night. >> caller: i am making 795 and can hardly make it and the post office people in omaha, nebraska are making a lot more money and they get all these holidays off, paid, overtime for the weekends, they work as many hours as they can. that is the first place to start cutting down and freezing their pay. >> guest: let's talk about the whole federal work force. let's not just talk about federal employees.

let's talk about contractor employees. let's throw those grantees into the mix. if we are going to talk about salary freeze and downsizing we have to include that hidden workforce. it is a very extensive work force. i think we did a job to job comparison between federal employees and contractors we find that the contractors are spending a lot more on labor than the federal government. that is not to dismiss your concern in omaha about the difference between -- about how much federal employees are making and federal employees have to make a sacrifice. president obama made that point. you can't be raising salaries every year and allowing automatic pay increases due to time on the job in this period. federal employees have to sacrifice contractors have to sacrifice. let's put it all on the table and let's impose a real hard

freeze on federal salary increases but the whole work force. not just the one we can see. >> host: talk about the postal service. are they considered federal employees? >> guest: they are qualifieds as we call them. postal service is a clause i government organization. it is supposed to run like a business theoretically. it is supposed to make a profit like amtrak but it has got one huge deficit. why? the post office unlike federal express and ups has to deliver everywhere. they don't have any choice but to make the mail out to the post office to the rural post box. fedex doesn't go certain places. they pick and choose their destination and most of their activity goes to major urban areas. part of the problem with the postal service is it was built

to serve every last american. i think we want them to do so and start that up. they are running a huge deficit and we have to do something to fix that agency. has been downsizing 4 years which is a good thing but it still has a long way to go. they are talking about eliminating saturday delivery. it is a good question your caller raises. we have to do something about the post office. congressman beryl liza who is the new chair of the house government oversight committee has got that on his agenda and we have to do something about it. >> host: our next caller in west virginia, pat, good morning. >> caller: hello. you just addressed my job. i am a rural mail carrier in west virginia and i can assure you that yesterday when i had to strap chains on my vehicle in order to negotiate the ridges and the haulers who don't have a

guard rail where i could lose my life literally if i make one wrong move, i think i earn my modest $50,000 salary. what i would like to turn the conversation towards, talking about salary cuts, remember this. i don't hear anyone in congress talking about reducing their own pay, their own benefits and they make a generous salary. most of them are people who are very wealthy and they paid on their capital gains a lower rate of income tax than i do for the most part. but the thing i want to is everybody who talks about cutting salaries is somebody that makes 20 times the salary of the people who actually empty the garbage and carried the mail and make sure roads are being

built with the sweat of their hands. let's start talking when we predicate these discussions with the people at the top taking the hit first as an example since they are the so-called leaders. give me a response please. >> guest: you are one of the reasons postal workers are the most popular federal employees they are. you really do get out there. they know their folks whom they deliver the mail. they are very popular. you sound like a great guy. i agree with you. on the basic premise. congress has a very good pension system. you are quite right about pay to members of congress. some of them don't need it. some of them actually do return it but it is a good point. i will also say that in the executive branch we have 3,000

senior executives who work for the president either through senate confirmation or through direct appointment and we have been trying for decades to reduce that number to maybe a thousand. how many senior executives does a president really need? presidents have never liked this. they will swear that every last senior executive they have got is essential but 25% vacancy rate, we have just seen a bunch of obama appointments will beef for investment banks they were regulating for investment houses, lobbying firms. is really a bad deal and we ought to cut the number of senior executives. presidents never talk about it. cuts are always directed at the bottom of government, not the middle, not the high levels and we ought to put the middle and high levels on the table and we

ought to talk about increasing the number of jobs at the bottom of government actually. we are really decimated down there and one of the reasons we are having trouble in places like the food safety system is we don't have enough inspectors. let's move some of these jobs down to the bottom where the real goods and services get delivered. >> host: washington post as a front-page story on this topic co-written by a familiar face to c-span viewers and ed o'keefe who is covering the federal workforce. the government tends to resist reorganization. history shows obama is likely to face a host of roadblocks. after the september 11th attacks nearly two dozen agencies were melded into the department of homeland security to better coordinate handling terrorism and other national emergencies but the members of congress overseeing those agencies were loath to give up any authority. that is why dhs gets marching orders from more than one hundred congressional committees and subcommittees.

number that has grown in the last seven years despite the 9/11 commission's recommendation that those tangled lines of authority be consolidated. later on senator susan collins is quoted about reorganizing this saying it will require a sustained political commitment to overcome jurisdictional interests. later on a quote from caspar weinberger who tried to do this in the nixon days. situation in which narrowly based groups who have what they want and are afraid of losing it have proved stronger than large groups with more or less amorphous and single-minded attitude. the more things change the more they stay the same as what it boils down to. >> loved obama's joke about salmons. he could have just as easily talked about the christmas day bombing, the a recall last

summer, the oil-drilling disaster but that would not have been funny. every 7, salt water or fresh water, swim to capitol hill. those programs start on capitol hill. duplication and overlap comes from capitol hill. every salmon in the world seems to have a mom or dad on capitol hill. it would be shocking but possible that they all have names and are protected by districts. this starts on capitol hill. you don't rationalize committee structure. you get nowhere. consolidation and duplication, that is one heavy, difficult lift. we try, we tried at homeland security, a good example where it hasn't worked very well. it will be a slob. unless obama ties that up in a big package of reform, get a

little labor union by in, republican by in, we won't see much consolidation out of this. it will be very difficult. love him for trying but he needs to think bigger than consolidation and duplication if he is going to get this done. he has that opportunity. he just needs to take advantage of it. >> host: they are talking about cutting the size of the government. we're talking about challenges to reorganizing with dr. paul light joining us from new york. north carolina, barry is up next. >> caller: i was looking at the way that things are going over the last decade and i personally what i see and i don't like it is the manipulation of the people. simply to enrich the top 2%. if you take money is nothing --

you can't eat it or where it. they don't keep you warm but they use money to where they can -- they can still give it to their offspring. the point is a control the banks. nothing more than a separation between me and what i need to live. watching all these plants grow you could have all these people working or growing their own food or having their own housing or everything else. instead, we are following money instead of what we need to keep us alive. i don't see the human experiment of falling money instead of following the resources. you take t.a.r.p.. they should have gone ahead and paid those people's loans off so the bank could have gone their money and the people could have gone their houses. every decision we have done has been to manipulate everything in line to the people and

everything but to take the resources and put them back into those people's hands that are connected. we just play monopoly game. what is the deck of playing games? >> host: let's move on to a call from eagle rock, missouri. you are on the air. >> guest: i have one question. >> caller: if everybody gets a government check, a 1% cut in their checks, how much would that help the budget? i am on social security and i am willing to take a 1% cut. that is all i live on but i am willing to take 1% cut if they would take a 1% cut for everybody that is drawing a

government paycheck. >> guest: social security and medicare, huge part of the federal government. i don't like cutting 1% from those programs. people put in, they need to take out. the way to get those costs is through bending health cost curve. i am not an expert. what i would like to see as a starter is a more aggressive overhaul of the federal government. that would send a message to the american public that we mean business about a lean government that can deliver on the promises we make. we need to file the social security problem as baby boomers begin to retire. we have to work on that. this is the first year since the program began that we are spending more on social security than we are collecting in taxes. that is a big problem. 237, we will have deflated the

entire savings account, the trust fund that we have built up over the years and at that point we will be talking about putting this on our children, laying this on our grandchildren. we are going to have to fix it but we can't do it overnight and i am not sure it is fair. i don't think it is fair to ask americans who are dependent on social security to take that cuts. i don't think that is right. that is not my area of expertise. i have followed social security over the years. we have a big problem and we won't fix it with a one time 1% cut. we need to raise the retirement age and deal with some of the tax and benefit issues. that can't be placed on current retirees. i don't believe that. >> host: surely is a retired federal worker in baltimore. >> caller: hy retired from social security after 42 years

and rehired a militant. i am at one of the field offices in baltimore and i am working in the field office on a program that if i had not come back to work this program would not have been able to been worked on because they didn't have enough employees to do it. the field offices with a disability claims, medicare, need based programs, after pay problems, there are not enough employees in the offices to do the work. if anybody has ever come in to office and visited and seen the number of people outside the door waiting to get in at 8:30 to be seen, workers are interviewing all day. time to do the best work. when do they get time to process these claims? social security field office is just one of the offices of the federal government that i hope

they don't downside because if host: is a different that when you were in the final government? caller: yes, it was cut in half. host: why did you take it? and guest: the only reason why they took me out is they said what can you do with that would benefit us? well, the program i'm working on is what i worked on when i was working at social security. so if i had said i do not know how to do anything except file folders, i am sure they would not have taken me. guest: in a very academic word, this is nuts. we do not have enoughke >> caller: the backlogs are growing and many agencies, social security, the amount of time it takes to get a

disability adjudication with the veteran's administration. you know, it was interesting and ironic about the president's speech is veteran's can see their records electronically. if you're in the disability process and you need access, you know what? it goes to paper, big old files that get passed around like they did 50 years ago. we vice president made improve -- we haven't made improvements on that. what's that about? at the end of the day, we don't have enough people on the front lines to deliver on the services that the meddle, that the top in the contractor community, and the american public knows it. they are feeling like the federal government isn't working very well, and we're having one break down after another that's headline news. we got to redistribute capacity

in the federal government down towards the bottom. that's going to save money. upper level jobs are much more expensive than lower level jobs. i hate to criticize the managers. they do a good job. they do important work, but when push comes to shove, we need the workers on the front line. they manufacture the goods and services that americans depend on, and i think the obama administration, house republicans, and democrats as well need to take that on. they are just talking about freezing hiring. you know who that hits? the front line of government where the tunover rates are very, very high, unsustainably so, and if you say we're just not going to create jobs, but freeze hiring. the service degrades, customer anger increases. it's a bad deal, and we have to

do much more than what we call a random shooting here. we have to be deliberate about the overhaul and have to be aggressive. that's what is missing from the debate now. >> host: one on twitter says i think both parties look for large cuts without political backlash which is why we don't see any cuts. small cuts will add up. >> caller: thanks for my call. what i was calling about is the total compensation and listening to that person working for the post office and being out in all kinds of weather, i work for an electric utility company and i'm retired and we work in all weather. he's talking about walking on roads and possibly getting killed. what they told us with total compensation, our company attempted to be within 90% of the market place. that included pay, fringe benefits including vacation,

health care, and retirement, and one of the things i've heard about over the years about government retirements which include state and local is that when the average retirement -- average the income to calculate retirement, they use a three year average. most private companies use a five year average. that gives you a lower average income than the three year. also, the companies use the overtime that they've worked in the three years to be included. i don't know of any private company that includes overtime in the retirement calculation, and the other general question i would have is what copayments do government workers pay for their health care? >> host: go ahead. >> guest: well, look, when we talk about federal pay compared to private pay, there's a number of issues to talk about and one is the compensation package, the

health care, retirement, the vacation benefits and so forth and do a side by side comparison by job, not person in the job. i don't want to get into the details of that one, but we ought to be taking a look at the total comp package and being fair about it. just because feds get a good health care plan doesn't mean we should cut it. we have to make sure every private employee in the country gets a good health care plan. just because feds have a good pension plan doesn't mean we should cut it. maybe we ought to ensure pension plans for private employees are properly funded. what we're seeing now is state budgets collapsing like crazy. new york stay just took over nassau county because finances are coming apart and part of it is because of unfunding and underfunding of the pension system. you know, you have to be careful about making comparisons and ask

what they mean. there's a lot of americans out there suffering right now, too many suffering, and they don't have the health care, the compensation system that federal employees do and many of the contractor do, but that doesn't mean we should cut the federal compensation. what it may mean is make sure every american has access to the same, and i'm not so sure about that and our caller is basically making us aware of that, and that's something to put on the table. >> host: what percentage of workers are members of the union? >> guest: it's been declining over the last 5 years or so. last 10 years has been the bottom and has been shrinking. you know, trying to come up with the figure, you know, i really don't know, 15%-20% maybe? >> host: unions offered opinions on this discussion about the size of the federal work force? >> guest: well, they are

pretty angry about the pay freeze, talk about furloughs, talk about job cuts. you know, i'm really quite supportive of the notion of pulling out jobs at the middle and top. i said that before. driving resources down to the bottom. a lot of union members are working real hard trying to deliver these services and goods in a timely way. they don't get the researches they need. they don't get the help they need. i think unions can be broadened to this conversation if they recognize that we can put more resources on the front line like our caller from baltimore dealing with the social security offices and the backlogs, but right now, the unions are trying to figure out what their strategy is in the face of this jog or not coming out of the capitol hill saying cut, cut, cut, and the obama administration is not responsive

to it except for the pay freeze that has more holes in it than swiss cheese. i think the administration has to be more aggressive. >> host: middle management never gets cut. they decide who is cut, and is isn't them. the fed in maryland, do you think you'll be last in the discussion and you're on the air. >> caller: thank you for taking my call. i feel there's pros and cons on each side. there's agencies in the government that need to be cut or more efficient, but on the other hand, some agencies, i feel like the national institute of health is pretty well run, and to say it's lower level workers that you need? that's not true. look at the breaking science out there. they make $500,000 and you need

that too and need the smart people to work. the government you don't want to do high level stuff anymore and want it a service only government, and people, especially if they work for the federal government live in this b.c. area which is extremely expensive. they are already taking major cuts by working for the government because maybe they really want to do research, but to go across the board and just freeze pay or say you don't need highly paid workers, i think it's the downside of that is you will lose a lot of educated people that have a lot of offer. i mean, for instance, hiv drugs were discovered, a lot of cancer research. a lot of things go on here and to say government is still efficient, you don't need highly skilled workers. i think that's totally untrue. >> host: thank you. last comments.

>> guest: she's right. that speaks to a deliberative approach to dealing with the size of government. we can't take the blunt ax to it, and it speaks to the issue of compensation variation by level. we ought to be paying doctors and researchers at nih more. maybe we pay others less, maybe we pay still others the same. you can't wield the blunt ax here and cut jobs across the board. you have to be careful about this. you can get it done, and she's right, congratulations on her work. that's an agency that should be insulated and given the physical space it needs to do its job. there's more flooding out there i'm told than there is around the pa potamic river and they need more space. >> host: thank you for your time and expertise as this tone

discusses the size and surprise for the federal government and your research and contributions to the discussions to this on this friday morning. >> guest: my pleasure entirely. >> a lot of the actions that harry truman took made my life easier as president, and therefore, many of the decisions i made through executive order are the most controversial decisions i made such as listening to the phone calls of people who mite do us harm or enhance interrogation techniques. in other words, after the 2004 and after the 2006 elections, i went to congress and said we need to ratify through legislative action that which i had den within the constitution by executive order, and so the congress inspired the fact and

passed law that enables a president to have these certain tools, and people said why didn't you just leave it under executive order? the reason why in some cases it's too hard politically for a president to put out an executive order that for example authorized enenhanceed interrogation techniques. >> see the entire interview sunday night at 8 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. >> taking a look at the white house briefing room where president obama is expected to address the situation in egypt shortly. we'll bring you his remarks live as soon as the briefing is underway expected within the hour on c- c-span2, a look at different plans to improve the

economy cutting versus investment. >> host: there is a policy debate raging across the country and is a sore point in the town as lawmakers and the white house turn to the u.s. budget and deficit about the right approach whether or not with the economy right now more investment or government spending is necessary or whether it's very important to focus on the deficit. we'll talk about that with our two guests. matt mitchell is a research fellow at the university. >> we are a research institute based at the university focusing on public policy and the intersection of public policy through the economic lens and bridge the gap between research and what policymakers are hearing. >> guest: we are a market oriented think tank. we do have a view that, you know, in a lot of ways market solutions tend to be superior

solutions. >> host: and is bell from the brookings institution. "time" magazine cover came out today, brand now, and with an interesting photograph called why obama hearts reagan. you can see the current president and reagan pictured to the. i'd like to ask you how does this debate right now defer from the supply side debate versus the debate of the 1980s? >> guest: well, i think, by the way, one of the things obama shares with president reagan is they are both very upbeat, very optimistic. i thought the state of the union address was a very upbeat talk about how we can win the future if we did the right things. on economics, i think there really is a different because supply side economics says all

you need to do is make sure the economy has low tax rates and very little regulation and let the market work and it will grow very rapidly and it was a specific belief if you cut taxes, it would actually bring in more revenue, don't think any mainstream economists believe that's true, although tax cuts can have some impact on growth and thus have some revenue effects. you know, the other side, would say it's really important when you're in a downturn such as we have right now and unemployment is over 9% to use government to bring back jobs to help people be reemployed, and you may need fiscal stimulus, you may need monetary policy, right now

monetary policy is about as all stimlative as it could be, and miss cam policy -- fiscal policy is in this bind because large deficits which makes it difficult to say we should do more. it's also politically impossible probably to do more at this stage. >> host: and your theory? >> guest: i would argue as most sort of conventional economists says that we should pay attention to the fact that we're in a downtown and it's not a good time to be cutting spending and raising taxes. you just don't want to do that in the middle of a recession. on the other hand, you do want to have a fiscal plan going forward that shows you can get your fiscal house in orderment that will reassure financial

markets and our creditors abroad that we know what we're doing and prevent an increase in interest rates or a fall on the dollar from disrupting any recovery that may be incipient right now. >> host: well, matt mitchell, you were not around for the reagan administration unlike dr. sawhill and myself, but how do you view the problems of the country now being different or the same as previous periods in the country? >> guest: one thing is spending. if you look at what happened during the reagan administration and then what happened with republicans in the decades that followed it, it was a significant, almost laser-like focus on taxes and taxes only. while they cut taxes, they never addressed spending and allowed spending as a share under the economy increased and president clinton -- what you see right now, i think,

is that taxes are significantly lower than they were when reagan first came to office, and the people opposing the administration for the first time in quite awhile are not focused on taxes as they are on the spending problem. to me, that's heartening a little bit because this sort of obsession with cut tax and let spending continue i don't think makes a lot of sense. >> host: with the recession we're in, why is spending a problem? >> yeah, so spending is a problem for a number of reasons, but the main reason is it drives two things we know. if it's paid for with taxes, taxes can harm economic growth. there's a great study by president obama's former economic add visor on that among others. if it's paid for with debt, we know that excessive debt and deficits also harm economic

growth. aside from that, the trajectory for spending is in my view unsustainable. it's not so much what's happening today. today spending is a share of the economy. it's about 25% which is definitely above average. normally it's 20%. in 20 years it will grow 15%. >> host: are you concerned about it in the future? >> guest: i am extremely concerned about it and see the same trajectory. we should be clear to what it's due to. it's due to the aging of the population and the fact that health care costs per person in the u.s. are accelerating at a very rapid rate, and that is basically what is increasing spending as a proportion of the economy. right now there's a temporary increase in spending because of the recession and the need to have unemployment insurance and

some other programs that were part of the stimulus package, but that's a very short term thing, and i think basically what i'm concerned with and sounds like what matt is concerned about is not what's going on right now, what we should really be worried about is what the fiscal situation looks like a decade from now, two decades from now, three decades from now. by 2040, three programs, social security, medicare, and medicaid, along with interest on the debt will consume all the resources that we have unless we increase taxes to much, much higher levels than we ever experienced historically. >> host: let me give the viewers the opportunity to get involved in the institution here. you can e-mail us, tweet us, or you can use the old fashioned telephone way which we like much because we hear your voice.

we're talking about the economy and the prescription for it now and concerns for the future. all that on the table with our guests who have seen the same future, but have different prescriptions on addressing it. let me ask you before we get to calls, matt mitchell, about the demographics and interest on debt that will consume so much of our gdp and what you believe the right path is. >> guest: uh-huh. i think isabel is absolutely right. people in washington are eager to put a white hat on someone and a black hat on somebody else saying the other side is causing the problem. there is the truth that this has to do with demographics and rising health care costs, and that's nothing that really anybody has a firm grasp on you

you can affect rising health care costs. as far as demographics, there is something to do which is take steps now while people have enough time to prepare for it and to accommodate by increasing the retirement age, indexing the cost of living adjustment to change cpi which is the change in prices, you can take those kinds of steps to shore up the system now. i would add to the list of things that are causing this increase in spending. i would add a third which is sort of this exception that everybody in washington takes. i would guess most people in washington, most politicians admit there's a spending problem, but make exceptions for one project or another. when you add up 535 exceptions, nobody wants to cut their particular project and then you have a spending problem. >> host: what percentage of

combined expenditures of homeland security defense and cia make up the budget? >> guest: isabel maw have a better sense of that. >> guest: homeland defense and cia, i think it's 17% of the budget overall or something like that. >> host: do you support the reforms that matt mentioned in regards to social security? >> guest: yes, but i would emphasize that when we talk about raising the retirement age or slowing the gloat of benefits, we're not talking about affecting anyone who is retired right now who is about to retire. we're talking about putting in place now a plan for the longer term future that says to younger people today, you're going to get at least as much in benefits as the current generation, you're just not going to get as

big an increase as you might have expected, and we're going to encourage you to do some saving to make sure that you have enough resources when you retire. social security was never meant to be the only source of income in retirement. it was intended to be part of a three legged stool. it was one leg, and then another leg was a pension from your employer, and the third was your own personal savings. >> host: is there a point to which the program was called supplemental security program? >> guest: that's a separate program that targeted more to the disadvantaged. >> host: it's interesting what we name things and social security suggests a wider net than you just described as intention. >> guest: well, i think that's a problem. i think that the american public needs to understand that it is not going to be the sole source

of income in retirement. now, for very low wage workers who worked all their lives and who may have a very difficult time savings, i think their case can be made that we should actually boost what they get in retirement a little bit from where it is now. in fact, the president's bipartisan fiscal commission recommended that although we slow the growth of benefits for the more affluent ben beneficiaries, we should actually increase benefits for those at the low end of the scale and also have an exception for those who worked in jobs where later retirement would be very difficult, manual jobs for example. >> host: moving to health care. do you support the health care law and addressing the costs that you're concerned about? >> guest: you know, i don't think the health care law gets at the problem. it is interesting.

there are claims that the health care law brings down the deficit over the long run, and the truth in that is what the health care law does do is raise taxes, but it does nothing to decrease spending, and it does nothing as far as i can tell to lower the cost curve. i'm not a health care expert, and so i don't want to talk beyond my knowledge, but in my view, there isn't a lot that government can do other than remove the perverse incentives that intervention in the health care market already has that they can do to bend that cost curve down. >> host: do you believe the health care law takes care of the health care concern you raised? >> guest: i think it will do so moderately. there's a lot of uncertainty. it could have a positive effect, but we don't really know. according to the congressional budget office which is the sort of neutral umpire here, it will

actually reduce costs somewhat and reduce the deficit, but it's a very difficult challenge to reduce health care costs without affecting access, but we should be able to do it. this country has much, much higher health care costs per person than any other advanced nation by a wide, wide margin, and we don't get better health care as a result of it. there's something fundamentally inefficient about the way we deliver health care. we don't get good value for the health care dollar. i think the bill did some good things, but it's not a perfect bill. it has flaws. >> host: i'll tell you about the two guests. dr. sawhill has been a guest over many years. glad to have her at the table. she has her ph.d. and spent her life in public policy in places such as the brookings institution prior to that as senior fellow at the urban

institute. she is the director of the budget inquiry national priorities, codirector on children and families, and a nationally known budget expert focusing on domestic poverty, and codirector of the central family and children's center and preventing teen pregnancy. matthew mitchells is a new face. first time here. he has his p hfd in economics from mason university. his research focuses on spending in which ways government policy develop and how it impacts what measures of well being. let's get to calls for the two guests beginning with norwalk, connecticut. tom, you're on, tom. >> caller: hi, this is more for isabel to answer.

if obama keeps on pulling money out of the private sector through his policies and keeps adding to the regulations of the private sector or the business sector, if you pull money out of the private sector and give it to the public sector, you shrink the money in the private sector, and it keeps the job growth down and exacerbates this long unemployment that we're seeing. do you see anything, a change in the heart of obama in his policies since the election of the tea partyers that will change his policy towards continuing high tax or raising taxes and regulations on the private sector? >> guest: i think in the state of the union address, you saw a

very clear picture of the president towards reaching out towards the private sector. he also in his a.ments has -- appointments signaled he will work more closely with business groups in the future, so that suggests that he's very aware that government doesn't create jobs, only the private sector creates jobs, and government's role is to make the environment such that businesses willment to hire, will want to invest, will want to use some of their record profits. by the way, the private sector is very flushed with money right now. corporate profits are at record levels. the stock market is high. what's preventing businesses from investing in hiring is the fact that people aren't buying what they have to sell, so until we can get the unemployment rate down and get incomes, household

incomes up, we're not going to see a lot of hiring. the longer term i do think the things that the president is talking about such as a drop in the corporate tax rate, closing some corporate subsidies or eliminating some corporate subsidies and revealing regulation -- repealing regulations can help. i don't totally agree with your assessment that obama has been especially bad on pulling money out of the private sector and regulating more than his predecessor. in fact, if you look at the data, the bush administration actually increased government spending more than any administration we've had since world war ii other than lbg, other than president johnson. >> host: another call, tom, a democrat, you're on.

>> caller: good morning, c-span and susan. my question is if we reenvies gait trade -- investigate trade agreements here, i think that would have an impact on the unemployment record. either that or looking at terrorists on these countries that flood our markets. >> host: tom, thank you. matt mitchell, what do you think of trade and its effect on the state of the economy? >> guest: this is an interesting issue with a remarkable amount of degree of agreement between economists on trade and what the public says about trade. my view is that it's basically the view that economists have had since adam smith which trade is beneficial for every party refuel and artificial barriers to trade cause more harm than good. if the government says that i can't buy a product from somebody because they live in

another country, that does me harm because it's raising the prices of my goods and services, and the harm it does for me outweighs whatever benefit bestowed on the producer and pass up benefits from this. i argue there's a dynamic effect where it harms the producer in the long run because it makes them less competitive. the auto industry in the u.s. benefited from a lot of intervention on trade policy for decades, and i think over the long run, it made them less competitive and unable to please consumers. >> host: there is a sentiment that we hear from people who view that the trade agreements decimated our manufacturing base in this country. what's your response? >> guest: the truth is manufacturing is going down in just about every country in the world and that's because the economy is changing and service sectors are improve ling, and this is the turn that was called

the creative destruction. this happens in the economy, and it's very painful for those going through it. i argue it's much more painful when government policies shelter people from the fundamental changes that happen in the economy. >> host: when nafta was negotiated and unfolded to the public in this town, we heard that there would be displacement. the public officials talked about the need to retrain the work force. was there enough of that done in the country, and how would that have happened? >> guest: well, i'm not sure there was enough, and i agree with what matt just said in general, but i think what we need to remember, and he would, i think, agree. there are groups of workers that are going to be very much hurt in the short run, and so if all of us benefit from trade as he argued, but some group is harmed, then we ought to have in place retraining programs and other ways of helping those who

are having to ajust to the very painful changes, and i think that the training programs that we have in this country are not terribly good. look at germany. germany is doing extraordinarily well economically despite all of the financial crisis and everything we've seen around the world of late, and i think one of the reasons germany does so well is because germany begins to train workers at the young age, they train them very well, they have partnerships with business to do that, they have apprenticeships. we could probably benefit from restructuring our training programs and using community colleges, by the way, more for this purpose. >> host: next call from tennessee, cal, republican, good morning. >> caller: i have three points to make quick. number one is ronald reagan when he cut taxes, at that time, the

rate was 70%, so it really did spur more economic growth because of the fact that they got more money this their pockets. number two, i think a president like that, he had a good speech, but unfortunately it was injen knew wows. to have a freeze is not enough. we need 20% cut across the board including the department of education, -- [inaudible] federal workers need to suffer to, a 20% cut across the board. another point is that there's too much regulation. i know as a businessman it's impossible to do business anymore. that's the three points. thank you. >> host: thanks very much. >> guest: thank you for the call. interesting points. so one thing that's interesting is obama has a portion in his

speech that is right on, and he says we condition be crieghting the deaf -- citing the deficit commission without lowering spending in the areas that people don't want to address, so this is the entitlement programs, medicare, medicaid, social security. it was about 1.9% of the entire speech and never had a plan for addressing that, but i still applaud him for saying this is the problem. what i want to see a leadership that says this is what we're going to do to bring spending under control, and with regards to the short term, you know, 20% cuts, i am one of those who thinks if you give a politician a reason not to cut now and make the tough decisions now, they will run with it and choose not to cut. on the other hand, still the point made earlier that really the biggest problem is projected spending increases, and so we have to figure out how to get

those projected spending increase z under control, and i say there's no better time to start than now because it gets more and more difficult to deal with this as time goes on. >> host: what would you like to say? >> guest: there's a lot to cover there. we talked about the reagan tax cuts and the caller mentioned it as well. thane were in the put forward in a supply side, with the supply side rational, but they were really tax cuts because we were in a recession in 1981, a very deep recession actually, and those tax cuts helped us get out of the recession. reagan raised taxes in 198 # and subsequently in the 1980s again he raised taxes. that was basically the type tax cuts that were designed to get us out of recession, not to help long term growth. the freeze? i think not being enough that

the president in the state of the union said that the freeze was not going to be enough and went on to talk about some of the big entitlement programs. you talk about revenues, and i want to get on the table the fact if we were to allow the temporary tax cuts that are going to last for two years now enacted in december, these were the income tax cuts we all benefit from and extended for both the middle class and wealth in this past december, but only for two years, if we let the tax cuts expire, that would solve a lot of this deficit problem that we face. i don't think there's the only solution, but i think it should be part of the solution. we've said a lot about regulation, so i'll leave it there. >> host: thanks. i'll show a clip from congressman paul ryan in response to the state of the union address. >> unfortunately, instead of restoring the fundamentals of economic growth, he engaged in a

spending spree that not only failed to deliver on jobs, but plunged us deeper into debt. the facts are clear, since taking office, president obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25% for dplessic government -- domestic government agencies, a 84% increase when you include the failed stimulus. all this government spending was sold as investment, yet after two years, the unemployment rate is above 9% and government has had over $3 trillion to our debt added. >> host: i want to start with the outset that the stimulus program was necessary at the time and job creation of focus. why is the unemployment rate still where it is with the stimulus package? >> guest: well, there are many good economic studies that suggest that if we had not done what we did, the unemployment rate instead of being a little over 9% might be 1% now, so i

believe in those studies. secondly, i think that you -- i misspoke a moment ago when i said that the largest increases in spending had occurred under bush because i have to acknowledge that as a result of the recession and. stimulus package enacted when the current president first took office, spending has increased a lot, but you can't blame a president for a really bad economy. this financial crisis began during the bush administration, the bailout was a bipartisan bailout of the financial sector, the stimulus package that was passed in 2009 was intended to help get the economy back on its feet again. i believe that without that, we

would have had much more severe unemployment. >> host: does the stimulus program work? >> guest: i'm more skeptical. the administration made estimates initially that without the passage of the stimulus, unemployment would reach up to 9% they said. in reality with the passage of the stimulus, it peaked at 10% and stayed around that level for a very, very long time. now, what's interesting is if we don't read the literature on this, the language in the journals is nowhere near as the language from washington. there is a ton of disagreement about the effectiveness of fiscal policy and when all of that is sort of condensed in the policy process and put into the language of politicians, it comes out as it works and always works. i'm quite skeptical.

>> host: okay, i want to try this. there's a twitter follower who wants to do a litenning round with you and have you say good or bad to the following things. let's try this. it's going to be really hard. all right. good or bad, free trade? >> guest: good. >> guest: good. >> host: trade unions? >> guest: good. >> guest: bad. >> host: minimum wage? >> guest: bad. >> host: -- >> guest: good. >> host: immigration? >> guest: bad -- i'm in the infavor of illegal things. >> host: legal immigration? >> guest: i think immigration is a positive element in the country. >> guest: exactly. >> host: high or low taxation?

>> guest: low. >> guest: low. >> host: there you go. brian, independent on the air, good morning. >> caller: i have a question for each one of your guests. the first is for isabel. curious how you cut medicare and medicaid when it's $125 billion in debt, and then for matthew, i'm curious we already had a stimulus package at almost $1 trillion, and he spoke of interstructure spending on that as well, and that's all he is talking about again. where did the money go? how much money is left of that. thank you very much. >> guest: yes, it's interesting. a lot of the debate about stimulus has focused on the size of the so-called government multiplier, how much bang you get for your buck. that's the point that i was making earlier where really the estimates are all over the

board. a lot of credible studies find it's lower than the administration thinks it is, but another aspect focuses on what is the multiplier multiplying? there's a study out from stanford economists, john taylor, that looks at this, and what seems to happen is all the extra government spending did not need to increasing government purchases. what they financed at the state level is allowed state governments to cover their deficits, and it basically what you see is people are not going out and consuming and spending which according to the theory would lead to an increase in employment and increase in the economy, but instead they are paying down their long term debts. >> guest: i'm not sure i understood your question. i heard you say how can we cut medicare and medicaid when we are already have a large debt. is that what you said? >> host: that what i thought

too. >> guest: i mean, i don't know why, in fact, we shouldn't over time be raining in health care costs which include medicare and medicaid because we have a large debt. the whole point here is that they are contributing the growth of those two programs that are contributing a great deal to the accumulation of debt and deficits, and therefore, we do need to get them under control for exactly that reason. >> host: coming back at you on your social security comments writing social security doesn't contribute to the current deficit. social security can still pay out 78% of future benefits if nothing is done. >> guest: well, that is technically correct if you believe in this notion that there is money in a trust fund that can be used to pay future benefits. keep in mind that that so-called money in the trust fund isn't really money. it suspect real asset --

is isn't real assets. it is paper. i o. u.'s. there's a trust fund between society and the rest of government, and right now social security is paying in in payroll taxes less than what's being paid out in benefits, so it is beginning to need to draw on other resources to pay those benefits, and that's what concerns me, and if we began to do something about this now, it wouldn't, we could give people lots of advanced warning. it wouldn't have to be painful. if we wait until 2037 -- i've got the date wrong, don't i? >> guest: 2838 i think. >> guest: any way, it's about then, then we're going to have a very, very going off the cliff type effect.

>> host: bill on twitter wants clarification. senator conrad committee chair said yesterday social security is now cash negative. could you explain that term? >> guest: isabel just eluded to that. just starting this year, and this is earlier than we thought, the amount of money collected in payroll taxes, the taxes that are just about everyone pays that both the employer and the employee pay is less than the amount than we send out in social security checks this year. >> host: indianapolis, good morning to jim, democrat. >> caller: yes, talking about taxes and spending, but nobody mentions the two wars and tax breaks for the rich, and half the budget is in the military, and what do we cut from them? 5% and pay 5 #* 50% on -- 50% on military? they talk about social security and didn't weapon overpay for

that -- didn't we overpay for that under ronald reagan to fix this problem? >> host: thank you. when the president presented his five year freeze in spending, does that include military? >> guest: no, it did not, but he has talked and secretary gates has talked about making some pretty hefty cuts in the military budget so i think you're going to see some scaling back of military expenditures. obviously, the two wars were something that were started in a previous administration, and they were not paid for. in fact, i believe it's the first time in history that we have put the fighting of two wars on the national credit card, so that is not a good thing, and i agree with, i think, at the thrust of your question that we ought to scrub

the defense budget. it's not half of what we spend, but it is a significant chunk, and it should be looked at. now, this are quite a large group of republicans in the congress right now who do not want to cut defense at all. they really want to fence it off, and they are not willing to talk about the big entitlement programs we've been discussing here, so that leads in very small sliver of the budget that is maybe, you know, 15%-16% of all the money we spend to take all of the cuts, and that creates a very difficult and not acepsble situation. >> host: fielding this question from twitter dealing with state budgets. how do the states and government rob social security and the pensions which is the real reason that they want to cut them rather than paying back? >> guest: well, the states have nothing to do with social

security, but just the pension programs. according to the states, pensions are underfunded by $1.5 trillion i believe, but -- or maybe just 1 trillion, but when you use a proper discount and account for it in an economically sound way, they are underfunded by $3 trillion. it's a huge problem. states increasingly rely on skipping their pension payments in order to balance the books. virginia, for example in this last year, skipped its pension payment to balance the books. that just underminds and exacerbates a very difficult problem. >> host: governor chris christie in new jerseyments to do that, no solutions, just cut. >> guest: i think that if you make an unsustainable promise to someone, you are not doing naivers in the long run. i want to tell my 8 month old

daughter you're not likely to see as big a social security as i saw, so plan for it, get ready for it now. i think that's a much more compassionate approach than to say, yeah, it's going to be there. don't save. you'll be fine. displs i know this -- >> host: i know this complicates the picture, but let me ask about the fiscal woes of the state. they are asking whether or not it's possible to change the loss that the states can actually declare bankruptcy thus cutting pension obligations and other iou's that they have. that cascading effect. i want to ask you about your concerns about state's fiscal woes and cascading effects on the larger u.s. economy. >> guest: well, it's a very serious issue and because states, almost every state is required to balance its budget, when their revenues plummet which they have done as a result of the recession and their deficits go up, they have to take these very hard steps that

we've been talking about, the federal government unwilling to take. they have to raise revenues or cult spending and lay people off. that's just going to exacerbate the economic problems we face. right now, the economy is growing at a modest pace, most of the forecasts for for a growth -- are for a growth rate of 3%, but we have to grow at #.5% -- 2.5% to keep steady with the labor force. we have to grow faster to keep up with the pool of unemployed people, and the fact that states are cutting back on their spending and laying people off just makes it much harder to get out of the hole we're in, the economic hole we're in. >> host: it's a discussion about two economists coming at it from different positions. next telephone call from

killingsworth, connecticut, carls, on the republican line. good morning. >> caller: good morning, this might not be exactly main, but it aggravated me over the ages. i'd like to have the government referred not to a budget because as i understand it when most families figure a budget, at the top of the page they put down what their income is, then they list all the things they have to spend money on such as food and represent and mortgage -- rent, mortgage, and transportation and so forth. if that number is bigger than the top of the page, they go back and cut the other things. now, the government doesn't work that way. they don't call it a budget. i'd like to know if from now on can we refer to it as the government's expense account? i'd like to hear your opinion. >> guest: well, i'll start and say i like your idea in general,

and i think that the government does need to live or learn to live within its means which is really what you're talking about, and, you know, we had an awful lot of problems back in 2008 leading up to where we are now because a whole lot of people were living beyond their means. we had, you know, access indebtedness in the household sector, people maxes out credit cards, people refinancing their mortgages, and then we had this credit bubble, and it burst, and it created a lot of the problems that led to the current recession, and when the government does the same thing, think about it this way. there's not going to be anyone to bail out of the government if it can't pay its bills, so this is one reason why many of us including me are very, very concerned about the fiscal

situation we face, and why we hope the president will take leadership and the congress will follow and there will be a bipartisan willingness to tackle this problem to get our expenditures in line with our revenues, and whether you do that by cutting spending or raising taxes, the point is you should live within your means. >> host: let me put two pieces of information on the screen. first of all, this is from the republican study committee, that the conservative policy group in the house of representatives, their proposal to cut $2.5 trillion over 10 years include freezing nondefense discretionary spending to 2006 levels through 2021. res send remaining stimulus funds, privatetize fannie and freddie, reduce the work force,

and cut more than 100 federal programs. let's listen to the president after the day of the state of the union in investing in infrastructure. >> we've got to be more productive, more capable, more skilled than any workers on earth. it means making sure our infrastructure can meet the demands of the 21st century. we have to rebuild our roads and bridges, connecting america and the american people with high speed rail and internet. it means doing what we try to do in our own lives by taking responsibility for our deficits, by cutting wasteful excessive spending wherever we find them, and it means reforming the way the government does business so it's efficient and responsive to the needs of americans. instead of being responsive to meet the lobbyists.

>> host: matthew mitchell, start with you. the president acknowledging a need to reform government, talks about investment in programs whereas republicans suggest cutting. >> guest: yeah, i think this is the problem. on the one hand you see the aggressive republican proposals starts out with cutting spending in nondefense, nonhomeland security and then they move on and talk about spending. they have not put together -- paul ryan is the exception, but most have not come forward with a very realistic way to address long term entitlements. that's the republican side. on democrat's side, the president too says the right things. we need to address the spending problems, spending is an issue to get serious about, but he makes his exceptions, and for him it's infrastructure spending, investment in innovation and things like that, and in my view, what we serious

spending reform involves everybody being willing to sacrifice, shared sacrifice saying my favorite program gets cut, but that's okay because we don't want the whole system to fall apart. >> guest: i endorse what matt just said. the problem is lack of specifics here. everybody can talk the talk, but we need people to walk the walk and further more we need them to walk together. we need a bipartisan agreement that we're going to do the tough things. right now politically, nobody wants to go first. nobody wants to jump off the ship into the cold water and pay the political price for having done so. each side is waiting for the other to move first. >> host: we had a bipartisan deficit commission whose job exactly was to do that. >> guest: they did their job

extremely and, and i'm very, very impressed with the bipartisan's commission's report. they put good ideas on the table and the president in the state of the union said he commemorated the group. he said he didn't agree with all of it, but he thought it was a start, and so that's good. the bad news is that he so far has not put forward in a very specific proposal. we'll see what he does in his budget which will be submitted in mid-february. .. that one senator suggested that the report of the commission should be put to a legislative vote up or down. guest: yes, that kind of proposal is exactly what would be very helpful. look at the 1986 tax reform, this was regarded as one of the better tax reforms. they eliminated a lot of tax exemptions, loopholes, deductions, credits if that were

hidden spending. and they lowered rates. this is something that everybody's ox was gored. it was a shared sacrifice and it worked. guest: it is very important. i don't think most people realize that right now there's $1 trillion every year in backdoor spending through the tax code. if we want to get spending under control, we should not just look at programs. we should look at all the special benefits that flow through the tax system to corporations and individuals, which make the economy less competitive, more inefficient, actually benefits people at the top of the income scale more than at the bottom. the president's commission focused heavily on the need to do tax reform as we did in 1986. that could be the higher priority in my view. we could also simplify the tax

system, which the average household would like. host: we have a sweet -- tweet. guest: i am absolutely. guest: i cannot. host: paul on our independent line. caller: i have a two college degrees, one in engineering and another in business. i have been in manufacturing 30 years. i listened to mr. mitchell. he said manufacturing jobs are decreasing all over the world. these people who talk about manufacturing jobs, they don't know what they are talking about. the first thing, there is no amount of training, there is no

amount of equipment that we can buy and manufacture, the only difference is the labor cost. that's it. manufacturing jobs have moved overseas to china and vietnam and other countries. there's nothing we can do about it. manufacturing is where the money is. that is where you gave the money. that's the main reason our economy is down. until they cut down on these trade policies, we will be a declining country. that is the bottom line. if you look at where the economy was 100 years ago and if you talk with the typical american, they would say the backbone of this economy is farming. nearly everyone was a farmer. if you were not, you'll farmer -- you knew a farmer.

then people will go into manufacturing. now you see this shift again from manufacturing into service industries and other types of industries that for the most part people are looking past other types of skills rather than using their backs. this is a sort of necessary fact of life. there's not much we can do about that. what i would say is the best thing we can do is to make sure the transition is least painful as possible. policies that attempt to cushion people from this change actually end up doing more harm than good. for the last several decades we have seen subsidies and tariffs and quotas and all sorts of policies that favor the automobile industry in detroit. as they did that, what it did

was its sheltered detroit from the rigors of competition. it added costs to detroit vehicles. in the and what we found is that detroit cannot compete with that model, cannot compete with other countries. basically detroit was in a recession 10 years before the rest of us. i would argue a lot of that is due to the un-competitive special favors that were given to those industries. host: >> do you share that view? guest: to some extent. one of the reasons that cars and other manufacturers are not competitive is we have a unique health care system in this country that is employer-based. one of the reasons that labor costs are high in the u.s. and relative to some of our competitors is because private employers are expected to cover health-care costs whereas in other countries they are covered by the government.

host: houston, republican line, dick. caller: thank you, susan. i heard about germany. determining and japan. the first thing hitler did was he issued money with no interest and started on a german highway. president obama tried to get our infrastructure worked out. had that money been spent, we would have something to show for it. we have something to show for its with gm. people used to work on farms and people used to make their own shirts and shoes and clocks and stuff like that. you can do it again, america. take your money and invest and sell to your neighbors. the president has spent $3

trillion up to a $5 trillion. what happens to the money that disappeared after 9/11, the $2 trillion and the $12 billion that disappeared in iraq and iran? guest: thanks for the call. one of the things i think you were saying that i would very much agree with is that we cannot look to the government to do everything. as individuals we have a history of being quite self-sufficient. right now when times are tough i think it is quite amazing how americans have really not been complaining much and have been trying to help their neighbors and trying to make do with what they have. and i did the president actually talked about that a lot when he gave his speech in tucson and said that there had

been a lot of individual heroes who have come to the rescue of a congresswoman who was shot, and in this time of economic difficulty 1 dingbat can help is if we are all part of this -- one thing that can help is if we all take part. if we improve our education system, that does not just mean the government doing stuff in the education world, it means, as the president says, parents turning off the tv, parents encouraging their children to do well in school. it means state and local communities taking responsibility for this because education is overwhelmingly a local responsibility in this country. so those are my thoughts. host: i want to go to the point that he made about

infrastructure spending earlier. he said president obama was laughed off when he suggested that we spend on infrastructure. how much of the stimulus package was directed to infrastructure spending? guest: i don't know the figures. i would guess about one-third of it. i guess a third was slated for that. what i would say is that there may be a role for government to provide some infrastructure particularly for types of goods that are public goods, goods that it's difficult for the private sector to find a profitable way to provide. some models for that are changing. things are far more reasonable than they used to be. we should consider those options as well. if those kinds of decisions should be made based on the merits of whether it makes sense to do -- to invest in these products. will the product create more value than it costs? i don't see infrastructure spending as a means to have your

cake and eat it. we are going to build the roads and create jobs and save the economy. host: here's a file clerk listening to your discussion about coeducation and asking what we should be educated to do. and related to that, this caller makes a suggestion that there are many unemployed college graduates on the street and we don't need more. guest: i would disagree that we don't need more. this is a temporary situation. i hope it's a temporary situation that we have high unemployment. people coming out of college right now are having a hard time finding jobs, that's true. but it is not the case that we are going to be able to compete long-term if we don't have a skilled and educated work force. host: our final phone call is

from pennsylvania, vince, democrat. what's on your mind? caller: good morning. in the early 1970's most insurance or rather health insurance companies were not for profit. i believe it was nixon that they changed the laws that encouraged the big companies to go for profit. as long as they have to pay out dividends and are on the stock exchange and also the high ceo costs and how much money they take out of the system, all of that money is being taken out of the health care system, doesn't that raise the cost of health care? if we made them all not for profits, would that not be a savings? thank you. host: some of the blue cross are operated as not-for-profit,

aren't today? guest: i don't know about the structure of the health industry. i am not a big fan of all the profits that the for-profit companies are having. i think that the new health care law is going to try to rein in how much money goes toward profits in overhead versus actual care of patients. but i am not sure that this is an area where we are going to reap a lot of savings. one thing that would help, there's a big controversy about this and i'm not sure how i feel about it and it's not consistent with our history and political culture here, but in europe they have much greater efficiency where they have a single payer systems.

host: having shown the two differences in opinion, how will the next six months play out? we're getting close to a presidential election. guest: it could play out the way it typically does which is politicians will kick the can down the road and we will see nobody wants to take a lead on this. the other way is it could work out a way that it has in other countries. in canada in the mid-1990s's they got serious about the gdp ratio, chronic government spending and high deficits. they cut $6 in spending for every $1 of revenue raised and they solved their problem. if you are able to tackle deficits with spending reductions as opposed to tax increases, it's much more likely to solve your problem. politicians that do that are more likely -- are just as

likely to keep their jobs than the typical politician. so it would be good politics for the president. is it easier to get >> you don't mention scott mcclellan who was your longest-serving press secretary. >> i don't know if that is true. >> and they went out and wrote a book that is somewhat critical. why not? >> because he was not a part of a major decision. this isn't about about personalities or gossip or settling scores, and i didn't think he was relevant.

>> see the entire interview sunday night at eight eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a. ?

>> today is the 25th anniversary of the space shuttle challenger accident that killed seven astronauts. nasa mark the occasion this morning with an outdoor memorial at florida's kennedy space in. one of the speakers was the widow of challenger's commander, june scobee rodgers. she was instrument and establishing the challenger center for space science education which now has 48 learning centers. the service is about 45 minutes. it's courtesy of nasa tv.

>> good morning. i'm steve feldman, president to the astronauts memorial foundation. i want to welcome you here today to a ceremony remembering the 25th anniversary of the challenger accident. challenger sts-51l launched on january 28, 1986, carrying seven astronauts, including the first teacher scheduled to go into space. tragically, 73 seconds after the launch, challenger was destroyed. and all of the astronauts on board lost their lives. today, 25 years later, we gather here to remember and honor those astronauts. a perfectly, we do this at the site of the space memorial, designated by the united states congress as a national memorial

to honor all of those astronauts who have sacrificed their lives for our space program. please rise for the singing of the national anthem by susie cunningham, a nasa employee. ♪ oh, say, can you see ♪ by the dawn's early light ♪ what so proudly we hailed ♪ at the twilight's last gleaming? ♪ ♪ whose broad stripes and bright stars ♪ ♪ thro' the perilous fight ♪ o'er the ramparts we watched ♪ were so gallantly streaming

♪ and the rockets red glare ♪ the bombs bursting in air ♪ gave proof through the night ♪ that our flag was still there ♪ ♪ oh, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave ♪ ♪ o'er the land of the free ♪ and the home of the brave? >> thank you. please be seated.

we will begin today's program with an invocation presented by a member of the amf board, and a prominent author, doctor mick ukleja. >> today we are here to honor and to remember, but also to celebrate the seven lives that were lived well. these individuals had families and have families, and we also remember the families and the great sacrifice of releasing their loved ones to such an intense profession to better mankind, and even a greater sacrifice of losing those that they dearly loved. these individuals were able to combine their passions, their talent, their competencies, as well as their vocation into one focused. and so for this, we honor them today, remember them and also

inspired by the lives that they lived. join me in prayer. our father, you have created us to excel. to be all that we can be for the purpose of serving other people. we are created in your image, and so we find that we also love to create. and we subdued and we manage our environment, and we love to explore. to understand the wonders of your creation, we are called to do this and for every a few, even becomes dangerous, even to the point of risking their lives. and it's too those rare few that we come to honor today, the risks are well thought through, they are not reckless but they are dangerous. we accept it. we accept that along with a promise of a better life. and so we honor them today not only because they serve us, but also because they inspire us.

like the great explorers of old, magellan, columbus and all the rest, they explored in the world and it was a world without maps or foolproof manuals, because they were creating them. so father, we are reminded today that there's a time for everything, a season for every activity under heaven. a time to be born, and a time to die. the time to plan at a time to pluck up that which is planted. so in the spirit of these heroic leaders, the greatest way we can honor them is do not simply live for ourselves, but to live and play well as we serve those around us. father, knowing that all of life is on loan from you, we thank you for loaning us these incredible lives, and we thank you that they are now safely back in your presence. amen.

>> we are honored to have with us today members of the amf board of directors and trustees, astronauts, nasa officials, corporate executives, military officers, and perhaps most important to us, family members of those astronauts who we honor. the command of challenger and its true leader was scobee. his wife, june, has since become one of the most respected members of the space community. her original book about challenger in titled silver linings, the triumph of the challenger, was truly inspirational. she wrote a book moon base crisis, about motivating young people to study science technology, engineering and math, and her most recent book, an update of silver linings, and really her autobiography which is just out is also inspirational and really something for all of us to

admire. she also was founding chairman of the challenger center for space science education. she earns a ph.d degree from texas and indiana university, and has taught every grade level from kindergarten through college. she has been interviewed on 60 minutes, "the o'reilly factor," the oprah winfrey show, good morning america, and untold, untold additional shows. she has too many awards for me to be able to mentioned this morning, but it is a pleasure to introduce our keynote speaker, doctor june scobee rodgers. [applause] >> thank you very much, for those nice words. it makes me feel like i am somebody. and it wasn't even of my own funeral. well, it's a nice cool, brisk morning here. chamber of commerce didn't get the message to make it a

beautiful day for us to talk about florida. good morning. there's so many of you have joined today, thank you for coming on this cool, brisk today to help us honor the challenger crew. and, in fact, all of those names that are behind me in the beautiful memorial. on behalf of all the challenger families, i am happy to be here. we are represented by the resnick families as well. so hello to you. i thank you for being here to help us honor our loved ones, in the spirit of the mission of the space shuttle challenger. it's hard to believe that 25 years has passed since that fateful day, january 1986. we know it when we look at our kids how they have grown, and we have nine grandchildren. but like everyone watching around the world, we were stunned to see the unspeakable

unfold right before our eyes. could this really happen? no one believed it could happen. what should have been a day heralded for education turned to tragedy in a split second. our loved ones were gone. our nation greed, and our future looks uncertain you. years later's after we lost a beloved columbia crew, my daughter wrote a letter to those children. she said everyone around the world saw how our challenger crew, my dad died. they all wanted to say goodbye to american heroes. me, i just wanted to say goodbye to my daddy. she helped those children to realize that their lives had become very public, but that keeping memories alive of their

parents, ask people that knew them to tell you stories about their dads. i remember being at the memorial service at johnson space center shortly after this accident, watching this missing man formation fly over. one plane, i think you all are aware, one plane pulls up and climbs to the heavens to symbolize the loss, but the other planes continuing to carry on the mission. that's when it dawned on me, challengers mission, a mission to teach, was incomplete, lessons were left untaught, scientific and engineering problems were left unsolved. but the saddest reality was the impact on the children. the chance to really touch a child and inspired a new generation of explorers. the families of the challengers

seven realize something very profound, we didn't somehow -- if we didn't somehow continue challengers mission of education, then our loved ones would have died in vain. and certainly that entire crew embraced christa mcauliffe, and was known as the teacher in space mission. we couldn't let that happen, that they would be forgotten. so we begin to turn this unimaginable tragedy into a monumental triumph. the entire world knew how the challenger crew died. we wanted the world to know how they lived, and for what they were risking their lives. week, jane smith, cheryl, steve mcauliffe, chuck resnick, all seven families banded together to create a cause greater than ourselves. that would not only take us into the future, but help us to heal

our hearts and the hearts of those in our nation. one night, only weeks after the accident while sitting around in my living room in my home in houston, we conceived an idea that of the challenger center, a living tribute to our loved ones, a place that would provide american students with access to outstanding space science educational opportunities. we envisioned activities where children, teachers and citizens alike could touch the future. manipulating equipment, conducting scientific experiment, solving problems, working together, immersing themselves in a space like surrounded and growing accustomed to the space technology. ..

>> later today, i'll join those folks at the challenger center in houston to celebrate that memory which i do every year. i go to a challenger center to see children doing what our beloved challenger space crew loved so much. each year, more than 400,000 school centers visit the center and experience the thrill and excitement of space exploration, and with the new chairman, i

think that number will double in no time. in the past 25 years, we reached more than 4 million children. we have strong partnerships with nasa and other federal agencies, numerous universityings and contractors to keep the curriculum current in its ongoing evaluation and consultation and leadership on the board of directors laid a solid foundation for growth in numerous directions it wasn't the final chapter in space exploration, just a transition chapter in this great book, nor is space shuttle the last chapter. as i wrote and as any good schoolteacher, as i wrote in the "silver lining" book, we are not a nation of nay sayers.

we are a nation of believers. we are innovators and problem solvers, and yes, risk takers with a pioneering spirit that began with our forefathers who sailed from europe to establish our nation and then boldly expanded west exploring, discovering, and building our country. technology gave us automobiles and locomotives. then we slipped this early bonds of earth into airplanes and built the rockets to launch us on the highway to space. we, as a nation, are indebted to the space pioneers who blazed a trail of exploration and discovery. here at kennedy space center, you've witnessed decades of launch successes from early mercury astronauts, the excitement of john glenn and

exciting days # of moon landing when we were glued to the flickering black and white televisions to watch the first steps of armstrong on the moon. then came the shuttle, a space station transportation system, a plane with sparkling white wings designed by creative engineers to launch like a rocket towards the helps, orbit the earth, build the international space station, launch satellites, collect images from hubble, grow our knowledge, and fly safely back home to earth. after the astronauts were selected in the first class of 35 shuttle astronauts, i no longer watched the space launches from afar.

i watched them standing right here at kennedy. we watched the engines ignite and felt that thunderous roar as the first shuttle lifted off carrying brave astronauts. john young, and my deer friend, -- dear friend, bob, who is here today. they shared their experiences with us. one was a particular joy after my husband pie -- io lotted this -- piloted this mission. now, it is sad to see the story reach the close of its chapter in this mighty book of space exploration, but the book continues with new exciting chapters about space programs and more advanced space vehicles to carry us into the next chapters of exciting adventures, discoveries, and achievements, and we'll benefit and advance the people of our planet, and a

new legacy as challenger center students will be there ready to accept the challenge of space exploration. why? because we have whole planets to explore, and we have new worlds to build. in the "silver linings" book, i draw from a rich history of the space program for the early days, my teenage sputnik days, to the explorers of today including this interesting emerging role of private space travel. returning to our day of remembrance, perhaps president reagan said it best 25 years ago when in place of his state of the union address, he spoke to a grieving nation. he took care to speak to the children who were watching the live coverage of shuttle's launch. he said, "i know it's hard to

understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. it's all a part of the process of exploration and discovery. it's all apart of taking a chance and expanding horizons. the future doesn't belong to the faint hearted but to the brave." the challenger crew pulled us into the future and we'll continue to follow them. the president concluded his remarks, "we will never forget them or the last time we saw them." this morning as they prepared for their journey and waved good-bye and left earth to touch the face of god. that is then, and their names are beautifully engraved on there, but this is now. it's time for the next 25 years

to unfold. let us boldly look to the future because visions built upon our rich heritage of space pioneers. look on the next horizon for our nation and planet. in 48 cities today, school children fly in space simulation missions that inspires and motivates them in science and technology, engineering and math. these children and others are our future engineers and scientists to build new vehicles to fly in space. physicians and teachers who will take scientific breakthroughs to improve our lives, and they represent future space explorers who will create the highway to our planets and beyond, who will travel to the unknown to make the discovery that expand our knowledge and build a better world and keep it safe. recently, i wrote with famous

author, kevin anderson, this is my other prop. a series of young adult sign fiction books of star challengers. these books are fun. they are well received. it's about kids who discover just how important it is to learn the skills of science and math to advance space exploration and keep our planet safe under a lot of fun because they have a mysterious commander zota who takes them into the future. it's here at kennedy that we stand beneath the astronaut memorial described with the names of our loved ones. these names represent people who gave their lives serving the country they loved. we honor them with our presence at this ceremony, and you honor yourselves for paying try butte

to them on this day. 25 years after their loss, their silver anniversary. thank you, thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. mike mccaley is share of the astronaut's foundation. he's a former astronaut and shuttle pilot. he is also a retired navy captain and test pilot. he went on to become an executive at united space alliance and u.ly became president and ceo of that corporation. it's my pleasure to introduce mike.

>> my first words this morning were going to be i'm truly blessed to be here this morning, but i'm going to add something in. as we sat here a moment ago, there's 25 years of senate directors in this audience. seven of them. i suggest you guys get together afterwards and get a group photo because you'll never do this one again i don't think. we are triply blessed, first as a new astronaut in the 80s, i was blessed no know and support the challenger crew. it was a privilege that i will never forget. then in the return to flight days, i began to understand more about the system and the program and the sacrifices and what we had to do, and in those days, i spent a lot of time in washington, and my favorite

thing to do in the mornings was to jog around the memorial mall, and i got to the lincoln memorial, and i would stop and run up the steps, turn to the left because the gettysberg address is on the left. i'd sit on the granite and read allot the address. the guards thought i was weird, but they got used to me, and tourists looked at me and pointed, but i would read it. later on, the second blessing came when i had the opportunity to fly space shuttle, and the shuttle that i flew was far more effective, far safer, far better than the one that had gone before me. the sacrifice of these seven cricketed greatly to -- contributed greatly to me to fly in a far safer, for more effective space shuttle. now, today, as the chairman of the board of the astronaut memorial foundation, it's a

privilege and blessing to be with you here today to do this, but as i was thinking about what my message ought to be as the chairman, you know, i could have made a long speech or could have made almost no speech, but in those days when i was in washington and read the gettysberg address out loud, there was a certain part of it that took on a different meaning during the return to flight days. in closing, i want to read that part of the gettysberg address. "it is for us to living rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work to those who fought here thus far that advanced. it is for us to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us that some of these honored dead, we take increase devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion, that we here highly resolve that these dead shall

not have died in vain." thank you and god bless. [applause] >> bob cabana is director of the kennedy space center and provides leadership to all personnel at the center. he was also a former astronaut who flew into space four times, twice as a shuttle pilot, and twice as a shuttle chander. it is a retired marine corp. and it is my pleasure to introduce bob cabana. [applause] >> it's really an honor for me to be here to help honor those behind me on this mirror. you know, those of us who are old enough to remember, you know, we can probably tell you

exactly where they were or what they were doing, you know, the morning of january 28th, 1986 when we lost the space shuttle challenger and her crew of seven much like the assassination of president kennedy, the apollo11 landing on the moon, 9/11, all of these are moments that define our history. i was a newly selected astronaut candidate with seven months of training under my belt, taking a class in the single systems trainers learning about the or bittal maneuvering systems when we lost challenger. when our class was interrupted to tell us what had happened, there was sheer disbelief. we were unwilling to accept the news that had been given to us, that we had really lost a crew. surely they aborted. they had it wrong. we didn't lose the crew, but

watching the launch over and over again on tv, reality set in. it was a really bad day. as an astronaut candidate, five of us in my class shared an office next door to the challenger crew, and one of my absolute fondest memories is on saturday morning. now, in the astronaut office, there's nothing lower than an astronaut candidate, and an assigned crew member in flight, shirley didn't have time to dedicate to us, but did. he took time from his busy schedule to talk with me and help me get settled in the office and in the community. this one saturday morning coming up, i met him at the top of the stairs, and he says, if you need to work on your car, bring it over to my garage. i know you are not settled.

i have the tools. i can help you. that's a memory i will treasure forever. once we accepted the loss, the long process of understanding what happened in bringing us back to flight began. as we recovered the vehicle, the story started coming together. seeing the pieces of the crew department laid out on the cement here at kennedy space center in the open, recording the switch positions on the consuls and the crew compartment was a very sobering task. it's no way to bring a space shuttle home, and unfortunately, it's not the last time we would have to do it. we learned many lessons from the loss of challenger. in the vehicle that returned to flight two and a half years later, it may have look the same, but had hundreds of changes to make it safer and more reliable. the challenger crew will be

forever young in our minds. their legacy is the challenger centers, an inspiration that motivates the children to learn and aspire to careers in math, science, and engineering. they've shown us that exploration is not without risk, but that we can learn from our mistakes and be better for them in the end. they continue to urge us forward to explore and to never quit just because it's hard. we are better for having known them. they are a part of us forever, and we will not let them down. we will continue to strive to be better, to explore, to expand our knowledge of our universe, and to reach beyond. thank you. [applause] >> the astronauts memorial

foundation honors those astronauts who made the ultimate sacrifice for the space program. we do this, of course, with the space of our memorial, but also with our educational initiatives which serve as a living memorial to those astronauts. allen shepherd was the first in space, one of 12 human beings to walk on the moon, and one of the early members of the board of directors of the astronauts memorial foundation, and a very important and active member. upon his desk, we established the allen technology award which is presented every year to a k-12 educator who made an outstanding contribution in educational technology, presented jointly by nas, nasa, and the foundation. last year the winner was rick

stora. he was selected for his role in creating the engineers for america program, an innovative initiative that motivates students to major in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics by having them experience hands on aviation and aerospace activities. it's a pleasure to introduce a winner of the allen shepherd technology award, rick soria. [applause] >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. a few years ago an engineering friend told me we were short over 60,000 engineers in the department of defense. we got to thinking about that and did research. we lose the students at the 4th or 5th grade. our initiative targets that student population. the school district where i work

has partnered with the united states air force museum to work with students based on exhibits that are on display at the museum. the alan shepard technology award helped us greatly. first, in 2009, the as no-faults memorial foundation partnered with me to perform the project. 54 students from four neighbors high schools participated. the ams team taught the students how to create movies on dvds for their school based on the mission. last year, the national science teachers association including an article describing our initiative and methodology in the national newspaper. as a result, we received e-mails from teachers across the country asking us about our experiments and how we did them. the florida folks recognized our

efforts with their impiewfed student outcomes award followed by an article in the recent florida monthly magazine identifying these as one of 21 intriguing floridians for creating asa. news must be slow. [laughter] the alan award for astronauts is making a difference in the education of students and teachers. to date, almost 100 teachers and over 3,000 students have been to the museum. teach everies report that students are engaged in learning stem con accept sents and -- concepts and have a growing interest and demonstrate improve the academic achievement after their museum visit. the award encouraged our sponsors. we are funded by grants. we are not full timers. we do this on our own time. the award attracted sponsors like the national defense education program, the boeing company, national defense industrial association, target

stores and others to provide us grant funding. in fact, one the contacts with the program is working to get our lessons online so teachers everywhere can have access to them. it's a great deal of attention and support, and we are truly grateful. john rogers once noted all students can fly, some just need a longer runway. the ams and shepard are helping. those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the nation's exploration of space, it is fitting to pause and challenge each other to become more involved in the stem education of our students. in the 80s, nasa scientists, astronauts and engineers collaborated with educators by inviting a teacher into space. today, the memorial foundation collaborates educators with stem

initiatives like stem education for america. we remain committed to the stem education of our students. by this continuing collaboration, we believe the challenger mission, vision, and memory live on in each of our students. the award has been and will continue to be instrumental in helping us achieve engineers for america stem goals, but we need your help too. each of us need to do our participant to ensure america's technology prep sigh. every teacher knows there's few endeavors more rewarding than the education of a generation of the next explorers. i'm asking you to partner with us and get involved in the stem education of community schools. we need to start today because the future beckens. thank you. [applause] >> thank you.

william is the associate administrator for space operations at nasa. he directs nasa's human exploration of space. he has program oversight for the international space station, space shuttle, space communications, and space launch vehicles. he has been a close friend of the astronauts memorial foundation and attended every ceremony of every type for the past decade. it's my honor to introduce william guerstemeyer. [applause] >> thank you very much. i'm honored to be here to speak with you today again this year. this is the most difficult speech i give. it becomes more than words as i reflect on the failings of the human space flight team. i was president of nasa and

involved in the space shuttle and space station of the challenger and columbia disasters. today i remain an active part of the space flight team and the less lones -- lessons learned that must be implemented and learned every day. it's not easy to look back and reflect. the crew's lost were my friend, coworkers, and an engineering team that i love fail. after challenger, i dedicated myself to never allowing another tragedy to occur. however, columbia occurred. i failed. the team failed. the seeds of columbia failure were present with sts-1, and we missed them. we learned that little things that seem harm can become catastrophic events. we need to be ever vigilant and

remember that we are human, and as humans, we will make errors, and we need to ask for help and check and double check our work. we cannot let the fear of failure stop us from doing the challenging and risky work of discovery. i see the courage of the families. i see the good work that can come from the tragedy such as the challenger center and efforts with student education. i also know the wonderful and almost impossible things that this human space flight can accomplish. the human space flight team learned tremendous lessons from these events. there is no better team in the world than the human space flight team, and we are no better than we pull together in stay focused. the ability to come back stronger from adversity gives me the strength to work with the teams and press on with new discoveries and see things such as the international space station come to life. 130 years ago, the world's first

purely scientific expedition set sail from port smith, england on a journey. during the course of the voyage, the discoveries formed the basis of the current knowledge of the oceans that covers three quarters of our planet including the deepest section of the ocean that was ever discovered. these discoveries were not free. they were part of the hms challenger who returned to port without a large portion of their crew. these discoveries were not easy, and we pressed on. 25 years ago, another ship named challenger left port fated not to return with the crew she sailed. this crew, our coworkers, friends, teachers, sons, daughters, mothers, fathers boarded a ship named in honor of

exploration and human knowledge with the goal of accomplishing the same. their sacrifice was a stark brutal reminuter that -- reminder that our science, technology, and dreams are paid for in the nearest possible way. this has been the case throughout human history and will be the case as long as we're willing to push the boundaries of our capabilities towards destinations of which we can only dream. what we do is not easy, michael, dick, ron, ali son, chris, gregory, and ali son knew this and accepted the risk. we failed them the day as we failed the crew of columbia 17 years later and the crew of apollo-119 years before. the only explanation is the renewed devotion to the jobs we've been asked to do by the nation to explore the universe

around us. we seek so answer the most difficult questions imaginable and formulate new questions. the hubble telescope is rewriting books every day. the furthest seen galaxy was just seen yesterday. there's the bilogical processes that will understand how we understand biology and affect our health here on earth. they were not the first ships to carry those names, and they will not be the last. every generation stands on the shoulders of the generation that came before not on the shoulders of giants, but of ordinary men and women who performed to the best of their knowledge and abilities and often failed. the legacy of those we have lost will be in dedication to never repeat the mistakes and learn from those mistakes and learn to anticipate future problems that are yet unknown. do not only listen to my words today, but stop today, reflect

on the events of the past by just analyzing the learning from the events. tuck this learning away in your heart and use it every day and all that you are doing. do not be afraid of failing. do not foolishly press on, but rather rededicate yourselves to expanding the frontier of knowledge in a manner that is fitting of the huge sacrifice made by those who have gone before us. thank you. [applause] >> we appreciate the fact that all of you have taken the time to be with us today to honor and remember the great men and women whom we lost on challenger. as we look up at this wall

behind me, we also remember the crews of apollo-1 and columbia and the trk t-38 accidents swell the other astronauts who made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation and our space program. we pray for the successes of our future astronauts who continue to lead us into this last frontier. to conclude today's ceremony, i'd like to ask june rodgers and bill to place a wreath at the base of the memorial under the names of the challenger crew.

>> i thank you all for coming, and have a safe trip home. thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> you can see the entire nasa challenger ceremony again saturday night at 8 eastern. it'll be on c-span. tomorrow morning, "washington journal" looks at nasa's future. >> your through with politics?

>> yeah. >> define that. >> i don't want to campaign for candidates and i don't want to be on these talk shows giving me opinions, second guessing, you know, the current president. i think it's bad for the country, frankly to have a president criticize his successor. it is tough to be president as it is without a former president underminding the current president. i don't want to do that. i'm on tv, but i don't want to be on tv. >> it's about over. [laughter] >> it is, it is. i tell people that one of the interesting, you know, sacrifice, i don't think you sacrifice to run for president, but to the extent you do is you lose your an any minty. i like the idea of trying to regain to a certain extempt -- extent in being out of the

press. it's liberating frankly. >> see the entire interview sunday night at 8 eastern and pacific on c-span's q&a.

>> now the annual state of indian nation's address. the main speaker is jefferson keihl the national congress of indians. we'll hear from lisa and this is about an hour. >> your cell phones, thank you. >> good morning.

[speaking in foreign language] i'm the national director of congress of indians, the nation's oldest and largest alaskan organization representing the interest of tribal governments across the country. it's my pleasure to welcome our distinguished guests here today in washington, d.c., and those of you -- i'd like to acknowledge at this time some of our honored guests with us in the audience. first of all, we have our board members,. we have david and larry townsend, deashing valdow, and marge anderson. we are joined by governor nelson who is of cordovo and the president of united south and

eastern tribes. chairman ernie stevens, j.r. who traveled all night long. richard lipsey the chair adviser of the indian finance. we have miss indian nations in the audience today. wendy from indian affairs advisers to senator reid. we have wade handerson and president of the leadership counsel who joined us here today. as we get started, i also before i do want that i want also enter deuce tammy duckworth the assistant secretary and she has given us special news here this morning which she is joined by stephanie stephanie burgwell,

the new director of indian affairs for the department of indian affairs, and we want to congratulate here on that new position. i thank those of you who picked up the broadcast this morning to air this address. at this time, it is my pleasure to be able to introduce the president of the national congress of american indians, jeffson. he served as lieutenant governor and has been the past vice president for two terms. he is firmly committed to service and advancement of self-sufficiency and self-reliance for our indian people, and he believes in the policy of helping our people through honorable public service. he exem mid that by his own distinguished service being an army officer for 0 years and -- 20 years in active duty. ladies and gentlemen, please

help me welcome the president of the national conference for indians, jefferson keihl. [applause] >> i want to thank you for that warm welcome, thank you for the introduction. my fellow tribal leaders, american citizens, national members of the national congress for american indians, members of the administration of the 112th congress of the united states and those listening or watching today from around the country and from around the world, i stand here today honored to deliver to you the state of indian nations address. after an exceptional year of bipartisan achievements to stengthen indian country, i'm

pleased to report that the state of indian nations is strong and driven my a new momentum. let me say that again. the state of indian nations is strong. we stand at the beginning of a new era for indian country and for tribal relations with the united states. previously eras were defined by what the federal government chose to do. the indian removal period when tribes were forcibly removed from their homelands to reservations, reorganization and termination era, the allotment era, even the more recent promise of the self-determination era, but this new era is defined by what we as indian nations choose to do for ourselves. i'm honored to be joined this morning be many tribal leaders who work hard to prepare our

nations for this moment. i thank you for being here. we're poised to be full partners in the american economy, and in america itself. we expect that in years to come in seven generations, our children's children will look back and say, that was the moment when the future of indian country was changed forever. call it the era of recognition. call it the era of responsibilities met or of promises kept. whatever it's called, it brings us closer, closer than ever to the true constitutional relationship between the united states of america and the indian nations. it brings us closer to what the constitution calls a more perfect union. [applause]

today, i issue an up viation to -- invitation to triable leaders, to our native people, to the administration, and all americans to join together, join us in helping to build this new era. why is this new era possible only now instead of before? recent years have brought a new foundation, the seven determination era brought a promising partnership between tribes and the federal government. we've demonstrated our capacity as self-determined governments that contribute to a stronger america. we worked hard to reach this point, but that alone is not enough to realize the promise of this new era. barriers remain, and we're eager to work with our federal partners to remove those barriers for the economic potential of our nations. there's another reason why we are just not seeing this --

now seeing this opportunity for the era. the state of the economy has played a significant role. these difficult times have made self-reliance into a necessity. today, the country's entering more than a time of difficult budget choices as the federal budget contemplates changes in the priorities of government. excuse me. as the federal government contemplates these changes, indian country offers a bold opportunity. investing in self-reliant indian nations is not only the constitutional and miranda ruly right thing -- morally right thing to do, but we offer a great untapped source of economic opportunity for all americans. this is a great moment when doing the right thing is also the smart thing to do.

i was encouraged earlier this month when the u.s. house of representatives read aloud the constitution in their session. america's founders recognized the inherent sovereignty of indian tribes and the special relationship between tribes and the federal government. they affirmed it. they affirmed it by putting it into words in our constitution. like all american people, we are afforded basic constitutional rights. we carry a special recognition that tribes a inherently sovereign nations within a nation, that tribes as stated in article 1 section 8 hold the same status as foreign nations and the states. these basic rights, these inherent rights are what we seek together to bring to all american people, justice,

domestic tranquility, general welfare, and the blessings of liberty to ourselves and prosperity. the preamble of the constitution speaks of a more perfect union, the new era for indian basis is a profound step towards that union. i stated earlier that there's been much progress to make this new era possible. i'd like to briefly review some of those successes from 2010. the passage and enactment of the tribal law in order act, the health care improvement act were monumental. we thank those on both sides of the ail in congress who -- aisle who crafted legislation that holds a promise of healthier, safer, and a more productive community. this work is not complete. words are one thing, but actions are another. we call for these initiatives to

be fully funded and fully implemented. we are encouraged by the recent settlements by the litigation over the mismanagement of indian lands and the settlement for discrimination against indian farmers. tribal leaders in tribes supported these overdue settlements because they'll help us turn the page on the wrongs of the past and direct our energies towards securing a better future. timely, we welcome -- finally, we welcome the united states adoption of the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. this formally affirms our fundmental human rights. it's a great step forward in respect and recognition of indigenous peoples throughout the world. this very morning, the u.n. special rap against violence of

women is investigating the challenges facing tribal justice systems. together, this sets the stage for a new era in indian country. this is a moment of opportunity to look in the future and realize its promise. the resilience and spirit that carried our people to this day is what will carry us forward towards our next great moment. our cultures are resolute and diverse. we see every challenge as an opportunity. iindian nations face great challenges and always have, but we hold great unheelsed personal -- unrealized potential. high unemployment rates, native people felt that for decades. often those unemployment rates are four to five times up employment than the rest of the country as a whole, but as long

last, this new era represents a way forward. one opportunity for tribal nations is energy development. our deep relationship with the land and reverence for the natural resources provide a clear course for our communities. tribes care for approximately 10% of america's energy resources including removal energy worth nearly a trillion dollars. let me say that again, a trillion dollars, yet only a handful of tribes have been able to successfully utilize these resources. in fact, the 49 steps, these bureaucratic steps that detour energy development on lands stifle the ability of the three affiliated tribes of the fort berthal tribe in north dakota while oil rings formed outside

the tribal boundaries. it took the interior department to streamline this process and allow the three tribes to cabana eases its resource -- access its resources. we call on congress to apply this effort to unleash the potential of indian country resources across the nation. realizing the potential of resources offers immense promise for the utes as a whole. -- united states as a whole. to achieve economic growth, the focus must turn to the potential indian country. just last week, secretary of energy too offered a promising jump start to such investment. he announced $10 million in support for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects in indian country. triable energy development means long term growth and development, and in turn, the

united states becomes stronger. that is an investment worth making. this is a good development and it's part of the solution to realizing our potential, but it is not the entire answer. on this and other issues, barriers continue to stand in the way of progress for indian country and our entire nation. sometimes, it's bureaucracy. sometimes it's a lack of access to financing and federal programs. we call for tribes to receive the same treatment under the law as state and local governments on tax and financial matters. it's time for these barriers to be lifted. the situation similar for electronic communications which is the backbone of the new information economy. across the nation, broadband communication penetration is 65%. in triable communities, it's only 10%. broadband is the pipeline to

progress. we need investment, but first, we need an end to barriers that stand in the way of that investment. as with energy, the result will be growth, jobs, and opportunity. our potential is already there. we've already seen what such investment can do. the three of the confederated tribes of the warm springs reservation in oregon operate a telephone communications company using federal funds plus grant and loan pack kicks -- packages to expand broadband. so far they reach 1,000 miles of reservation, connecting 2,000 people, 18 businesses, the government, plus schools, the health care communities, and police and fire departments. this investment is a foundation for progress throughout indian country. broadband is just one aspect of

the infrastructure needs. in fact -- [applause] in fact, there's never been sufficient federal or private investment growth to spur adequate services in this area. there's a huge potential to invest in our youth. we seek investments in our afterschool programs, quality education from pre-k to college and job training programs. we have many bright students, but many of our indian schools lack the curriculum or proper tools that enable them to compete for scholarships and other opportunities. our republican and democratic partners in congress and the administration share a vision for a more effective education system in america, and we encourage them to start in indian country. our children have been waiting for generations, and today is always is good day to start.

[applause] thank you, thank you. these are some of the things that congress can do to free the tribes. there are other things to do. things that won't cost a penny. our largest assets, triable lands -- triable lands are fragmented. current trust policy is neither affective nor appropriate. congress must modernize the trust to reflect the roles of tribes as decision makers in the management of our own lands. the supreme court's decision is threatening the ability of many tribes to restore lands and build economic development in jobs. this must be fixed. with the settlement and pending establishment of the indian land

fund, the federal government has an opportunity to make foundational changes to the trust to improve administration and further self-determination. we thank the administration and in particular secretary for the leadership on these issues, but the work is not done. we share the passion for self-reliance and more efficient government brought by many new members of congress, and in many instances, that's exactly what native communities and native peoples need, a government that respects our constitutional sovereignty, a government whose leaders want to cuts the red tape that blocks investment and prevents us from participating. this must be characterized by equal treatment of other governments. the same rule and same opportunities for economic growth. the federal trust responsibility does not have a political

afailuation. at -- affiliation. at this moment when a new era is rising, it's critical for congress and the administration to honor the special status of tribal nations and our people and honor the promises made in treaties, executive orders and congress. we urge congress to sustain investments in tribal nations by holding indian programs harmless and providing much needed funding for infrastructure, law enforcement, health care, job creation, and education. for the strength of our nations and to achieve a more perfect yiewn yon, now -- union, now is not the time to step back from investments in tribal communities that hold promise for our entire nation, the foundation is in place, but much work lies ahead. tribal nations are united with our federal partners by the

great ideals of democracy, equality, and freedom. there's something else that unites us too. this address would not be complete without acknowledges the service of nearly 24,000 american indians and alaskan natives that are currently serving in the u.s. armed forces today. [applause] they proudly serve, and in that alone, the state of indian nations can be summed up in one word, proud. as a veteran, i'm aware of this commitment just as hundreds of thousands of other indian people have stood for america as a citizen. they stood for america as a brother on the field of battle, and i stand now as a warrier to defend the honor of our historic trust.

[applause] since 2001 when our homeland was attacked, 77 of our people have died in iraq and afghanistan. over 400 of our people have been wounded. the bond between america and the indian nations is not in doubt. we remain united, and in a new era, we'll build a more perfect union together. toss a stone into the water, and it ripples and felt far away. in the same way, the decisions before us today will be felt in tribal life for seven generations and beyond. tribal governments understand that washington is entering more than a time of difficult budget choices. congress and the administration are contemplating fundamental