infrastructure protection which for years now has been working with our critical infrastructure sectors now 16 critical infrastructure sectors on security writ large. and also our office of cybersecurity and communications which has focused on the cybersecurity and our communications. that's a good name, tells you what it does. that we are now able to bring those things together, and we have a real appreciation for the ways in which physical and cyber are inexorably intertwined.

they really cannot be separated and the critical infrastructure arena. and again how i know i am preaching to the choir here. all of you i think understand the notion that you cannot have good sign or security without good physical security. you know, protecting access to your i.t. infrastructure. it is as important as all the sophisticated technologies that you put in place for cybersecurity. similarly, these days you cannot have good physical security without a good cybersecurity because our physical security measures and tools are so often connected to the internet now. and so we understand the potential vulnerabilities of surveillance cameras, for example, and the access control system, etc.. so in the security cents you have to look across the board

holistically. but the other awakening that's happened over the last several years is a recognition that cyberattack of course can now have significant physical consequences. and that the ignition and that growing threat -- recognition and a growing threat we have very much taken on board and i think you see it reflected in the presidential documents that were issued last week, and the fact that they were issued on the same day. so the executive issue on cybersecurity, which has gotten most of the attention and also the presidential policy directive on improving the security and resilience of critical infrastructure, ppd 21 is in decline since the war on the same day. at ppd, we have established integrated implementation task

force. so we have set up a task force that is going to focus holistically on implementing both documents. it's made up of folks from the traditionally -- who focus traditionally on physical security as well as the folks who focus on cybersecurity and everything in between. and so we are drawing across nppd and dhs coming into this task force throughout the interagency committee sector specific agencies that have the lead with respect to certain of our critical infrastructure sectors will participate and are telling people to participate on this task force as well as specific mechanisms for tapping into the substantial expertise and insight of our private sector think tanks, academia, etc.. and we have set up working groups that are looking at this

issue across the cyber physical, you know, trying not to stovepiped this into the physical security and cybersecurity peace. if i leave you with one message, that would be it. i think it is really important that as we are all part of the same team that you will also embrace the requirement to look at these issues holistically. so a significant part of what we have been asked to do is to think about how we prioritize critical infrastructure from a cyber perspective. so, for years as many of you know, dhs has been creating a less, per your ties to list of critical infrastructure resources across the country, and they have a level one and level two and a prioritize based on a number of factors including

significantly the potential consequences of an attack on those assets or facilities across the country. so, now we are being asked to look at and prioritize the most critical infrastructure from a cyber perspective. well, you can't do that if you're not looking at the physical potential cross sector and cascading physical consequences. so actually the person that is going to be leading up the task force on that, looking at how we prioritize, now looking at network systems and asset functions is going to be the person that's been leading the of personal security securitization. so i think it is a reflection of the degree to which we are breaking down the stovepipes and bringing them together. and the private sector, right,

it means bringing together your cso and your cisos and bringing them together into the same room. we have been doing a great deal of outreach to our critical infrastructure sectors ceos recognizing they have the ability to look at risk right across the entire enterprise. did they really get it and they walk out of that room understanding, but also admitting that they may never have sat down both with their cfo and c-17 in the room at the same time, but understanding how important it is to do that. and that determined to go back in and start asking questions about the way in which they work together. it's a critically important. we are continuing to work on that across the federal government and encouraging folks but most importantly, we have to

get their within the private sector. that is an absolutely essential piece of this. we have to have a coordinated approach and people are working together and again, at nppd come in addition to this integrated task force we set up a year ago and integrated analysis task force. so already we've been pulling in our cyber folks and physical experts to do joint assessments looking at what are the cyber vulnerabilities, physical cyber vulnerabilities, how do they relate to one another and importantly, what are the cascading effect? so a cyberattack comes in with a proof of concept, one in charlotte and one working with the folks in new jersey that is the head of the homeland security that's been a terrific partner as well as the private

sector critical operators but looking at what is the potential cyber factor coming and coming and then what is the so what, what are the cascading physical effects and the will result from that because that's how you need to begin to think about how you prioritize your resources. what we are engaged in as risk-management. we are not going to get to risk elimination. what we are talking about is risk-management. and as we know, risk-management begins with risk assessment and you know the formula that is a threatened consequence. but, so you have to assess those risks. and then you've got to think about what are the mitigation measures. how do to address every one of those and reduce each of those factors. it's not just about reducing vulnerability. it can also be about reducing

consequences, and certainly in the cyber every not particularly it can be read to sing that threat. -- reducing that threat. where do i get the greatest by down in the risk and that's how you come about york risk-management strategy and plan. and at the end of the day it's about how do i allocate scarce resources. resources are becoming scarce and the federal government by understand the ripple effect into the private sector, so we have to get better and better all the time in the risk management and analysis so we are allocating the resources in ways that are most effective, and again it's something that we look at very hard within the government and we try to bring

in assist our critical operators with. we will sit down with our private sector stakeholders to do former devotee assessments and we have a suite of tools to do that. there is a wonderful cybersecurity assessment tool that is available for folks to use. you can use it on your own and we will walk through it with you. the threat information is an area that folks look to the government and tell us what the threat is. we do a lot of briefings for the critical infrastructure sectors principally for the court making capital and also courtesy io. but increasingly in the cyber arena, the private sector has traffic information and we see this in the report that was released this week from the

private sector we saw this last year from the think tank of in canada and there is a lot of good information out there about the nature of the threat and a lot of good information in the private sector about the specific signature information and indicators made for collaboration not only looking to the government solution. on vulnerability, the private sector owners and operators understand you understand your vulnerabilities better than anyone. so what we bring to this partnership is again these tools that take that data and make sense of it and the ip has developed tools that not only help you do an assessment of your former devotees and your security posture but help you compare yourself to other

facilities. we are taking a regional approach because again if you look at cascading physical effects it's not just about you and the impact of your company but even from the government perspective we have to look at this in a regional way so we are doing this increasingly and that is something the government is particularly well-suited to do, not that the cross sector folks can't get together on a regional basis but chicago is an area that i think of as being particularly good at that. but again it's something the government brings to the consequences, are in the best position to understand the consequences to your shoes of the from a disruption, whether physical or cyber. but it's hard for you to look cross sector and the cascading effect. so, we have access to modeling and again, tools and its

analysis what we can bring to bear. said to give you a sense of the team approach where we see the folks strengths and weaknesses of the government and private sector as we continue to define that relationship in those roles. but i think what i know that illustrates to you is we understand we cannot do this without you. you are going to hear from andy ozment who will talk about the executive order, and i hope fees' ppd on critical infrastructure. but one of the things that i want to emphasize to you is we are going to be calling on you to help us implement this. the ppd is especially an instruction to the federal government. of the things we need to do. but it recognizes that in order to do the things we've been directed by the president to do, we need your help.

and so, you will be very much involved in the implementation. in the development of how are we going to prioritize critical infrastructure across the physical cyber divide? how do we incorporate the lessons we've learned on the private sector? to we have the right mechanisms in place and the right institutional framework in place? are there ways we can do this better? we know the answer to that is yes. what are those ways we can do this better? on the information sharing mechanisms, need your ideas and and put how we do that on the research and development program for the next couple of years we've been given two years to think about the plan. we need your help, we need your input. so we will be setting up a formal and informal mechanisms for doing constant outreach and i very much look forward to working with you on that and i want to think you for all the work that it's done and is going to do with less labor security working group that you've got in

place. you're looking at all the right issues and asking all the right questions and i'm very excited to see that output as you go along. i'm going to leave time for andy and some time for q&a. thank. [applause] good after an. i have questions from the audience. the first one is can you discuss the progress being made in implementing the nuclear regulatory commission for the commercial nuclear utilities responsible for cybersecurity and the inclusion of the cyber element in the regulated force exercises? >> you may want to reload that one. i'm going to toss all the hard questions to him. i was brought in to nppd and

they made the decision to create two undersecretaries because they previously had won deputy undersecretary, and not surprisingly, they conduct spending 90% of their time on cybersecurity and the infrastructure protection in the federal protective service management of those enterprises and those missions had to sort of fit into that other 10 percent for the person worked 150% of the time. so they decided to split that and brought in a cyber deputy who i know really wanted to be with you today and scheduling prevented him from being able to do so. and then on i have been focused principally on i.t.. one of the things that we knew as soon as we came on board is that there were benefits to creating these two positions in

order to, you know, span of control and make sure that all of our missions were appropriately manage. but there was a danger that we would create stovepipes and that this whole message that i've been talking about bringing the physical and cyber together would be lost. so we meet weekly in addition to every morning on our daily stand up, and we need on a regular basis and try very hard to stay joined at the hip. so i feel comfortable about the cyber issues being allowed to talk about what we are doing in that area. so we can take it and if andy isn't comfortable answering at. >> the next question you mentioned the importance of the partnership and improvements being made. i think there is a lot being made on the ongoing alliance.

what do you think the next focus should be on engaging in the industry. faugh one of the ways we need to mature across the government the relationship and the private sector is to not view them as -- for example when we different briefings, the office will -- my sense is that they come to those briefings with the idea that these are potential victims and i'm going to give them this information so they can take it and go off. our approach is we have to get information. we want to call you to the table and get your thoughts on this. what red flags go off for you, what does this mean as you understand your businesses and systems and assets, you know, what should we be thinking about in this threat information and i talked about this in that context and then similarly on the floor devotee and

consequent. that is the true collaboration. as it's the notion that we are coming to the table together and we are rolling up our sleeves and we are going to work through this in a way that recognizes that you are bringing something important to the table. so i think that is really the next step is a lot of what we focused on is outreach, getting information out, getting information out to the public sector, and that's really important and we need to continue to focus on that. but we've really got to build up the mechanism for getting information in on the private sector and having a discussion, a true dialogue. [applause]

our special thanks to is suzanne spaulding for providing that and emphasizing the connection of the communities which is so important and the basis of the discussions today as well as going to the physical. i think that is something that is so overlooked by the community. soa special thanks to that. i don't know if you were here earlier but on behalf of all of our speakers in lieu of the traditional black we are providing a donation to our education fund and then of course the very valuable coffee mug that states national security with that thank you so much for joining us today. we are back to the audience participation. so, in the next few minutes, your sound will be cleared and inbound will be launches. we will have that happen and we will give everybody about ten minutes and then we are going to

quickly get to eat while the speaker speaks. so dr. ozment will once enjoy the pleasure. but with that, i would just ask that, you know, while the speaker is speaking we would be quiet and pay close attention. with that we will start seeing folks in the room. we have a few minutes. >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> as you heard about a ten minute break in this conference on government cybersecurity. you just heard from homeland

security officials suzanne spaulding, one of the luncheon speakers for this afternoon. up next will be andy ozment, the senior director for cybersecurity. again in just a couple minutes on c-span2. while we wait we will go back to this morning's washington journal where we spoke with a staff writer for the hill who gave a preview of the week ahead in congress and some of the things underway including sequestration. mi >> on the phone is justin following the story for the hill newspaper. thanks very much for being withr us.e hill new >> guest: thanks for havingspap me. >> host: what can out of the conversations, not very muchest: from press secretary jay carney much day. >> guest: or from the congressional leaders.sional they've been tight-lipped aboutn what happened on the phone conversations but it's thteresting to see things are heating up a little bit and tha. certainly will increase next week as congress comes back andt the senate is likely to vote on the democratic and republican

version of the bill that would uuld pass andration with eitheo so it kind of sets up what is unlikely to come to a solutionil onik this issue. >> host: hell engaged as the president on this because there's been discussions back-and-forth that he's been on the campaign trail campaigning on sequestration but not meetint face-to-face with congressional leaders. >> guest: that's been a frequent complaint from the reans.ssional republicans. the president though thinks thae he has high ground on this, doing an interview yesterday with al sharpton she said 75% of americans agree that sort of a sequester bill should include both spending cuts and tax revenues, which is the president's preferred plan. so he thinks that by going out,

she did a bunch of interviews with local television networks, he stunned in the event already this week at the white house with first responders to be furloughed as part of the sequester and next week is coming to virginia shipyard to highlight how the cuts will hits so hein thinks by using the buly pulpit the president can force congressional republicans into a compromise deal. >> host: we areto talking with justin sink of the hill newspaper. the president also pointing to . poll that shows the majority oft americans looking for a combination of spending cuts and additional taxes. but republicans have said ,onsistently that is off the table. t,ople expect the sequestrationc does take effect next friday. who is in the driver's seat? the president or house think republicans? >> i think that is a good question. right now both sides think that, you know, as things go forward

will hold the upper hand politically. it's going to be really interesting. one way there might not be kind of obvious hits to the economy,t but people are going to start getting letters and saying thats furloughs, and start seeing less money in their medicare payments coming to doctors and that sortm of thing so these real-world consequences hit and will be interesting and likely would drives the deal who the political pressure is. >> host: if you could walk us throughho the next six to seven days, condra is returning after the president's day recess as you indicated the president is,h noo ggling to norfolk virginia, which is of course an area heavh with pentagon contracts and military construction and the navy shipyard. what are you looking for?

>> guest: the most interesting thing will be the votes in the e senate.d senate. i think it somehow democrats arf able to get the compromise bill, through that would offset the equation and would be very muchd thatpected. but that's maybe our one chance for the sequestered at this point. more likely it will be a vote where democrats put a plan forward and can garner enough support on the republican plan forward and also doesn't pass for the democratically controlled senate. and then you will see a lot ofph finger-pointing for roadsides with republicans saying the democrats couldn't pass the plad lannedsed one of the h nouse oft representatives and the democrats saying republicans are our cpromis blocked our compromise plan in the senate. so it's going to be a lot of there'-pointing and it will be very interesting to see if one

oide or the other is able to garner a political the advantage. >> host: justin sink following the hill newspaper both on the hill and online thinks very much for being with us. >> guest: thanks for having me. we are back live again at the conference on government cybersecurity in a short break. up next will be andy ozment, the senior director for cybersecurity. still just a couple minutes away from hearing from him. want to let you know transportation secretary ray lahood has remarks on the effect of sequestration and the effect is expected to have on travel. he spoke at the white house briefing today. his comments are available on line. go to c-span.org. earlier today the center for urban renewal and education also held a briefing to discuss gun control issue is yet how the impact the black community. here's a brief look. i do remember going with my

uncle lee chasing them pigs and read its and ducks. i remember my father taking me to the gun range to learn the proper understanding of ownership. but i also learned i did have the right to bear arms for the protection of my family. i wasn't home that night. but i heard of the 35 gunshots rat-tat-tat. i learned then i met the first line of defense in my house, not just the police, and certainly not this government. ..

jim crow laws and black

code. a substantial body of research already shows that gun controls empower criminals and weaken law-abiding citizens. regarding black realities, blacks are the least-armed, least protected and defended and most assaulted citizens in our country. according to a recent pew research center survey 42% of whites and only 16% of blacks say they have a pistol or rifle at home. can anyone who god blessed with a brain actually think that universal background checks which some past legal infraction might nullify a gun application will not result in fewer law-abiding black men from obtaining a weapon to protect their families? what about black women? according to research published in the british journal of psychiatry by dr. priscilla coleman, family studies at bowling green state university. meta-analysis studies show a 81% higher risk of mental health problems with woman

who had an abortion. will abortion be one of the questions on the universal background check application? number two the call for banning specific guns as senator feinstein has proposed it is problematic, it puts too much power in the hand of politicians and the law enforcement establishment which can not always be trusted. >> we showed that briefing live today on c-span3. if you missed it is available in its entirety at c-span.org hosted by the center for urban renewal and education. we're live once again at a conference on government cybersecurity. up next, andy ozment, senior director of cybersecurity. they are in a short break. we expect this to get underway shortly, live coverage here on c-span2.

[inaudible conversations]

♪ [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> again a short break in this discussion on cybersecurity, government cybersecurity. we do expect to hear from more government officials in just a moment. reminder about some of our programing that's coming up here on the c-span networks. at 4:00 p.m. eastern we get remarks from japanese prime minister shinzo abei. he is speaking at the center for strategic and international studies. he is in washington meeting with the p he is expected to talk about relations between the u.s. and his country. you can see that live at 4:00 p.m. eastern. it will be on our companion network, c-span.

we continue the prime time booktv programing later tonight looking at civil rights move. wed look at authors, mary francis berry and taylor brand. that will be. on c-span 3 tonight at same time, american history focusing on american artifact. we have smithsonian curator, eleanor jones harvey. she will talk about photographs and paintings from the civil war. all that here on the c-span networks. >> okay. folks. okay. we're going to get the second keynote speaker started here while you're

enjoying your lunch. but first i would like to thank our gold sponsors for supporting us today. they are centurylink government, blue coat federal, hewlett-packard, info blocks, juner per networks, lockheed martin, net app, palo alto networks, red hat, red seal networks, taurus advanced, enterprise solutions and verizon. special thanks to those. as we enjoy our lunch i will introduce miss tina kune. vice president of northrop grumman and one of our diamond response source for today's -- sponsors for today' event. send questions to ozment at fdcdc.org. miss kunee. >> hi. it is my distinct pleasure to introduce dr. andy ozment

today. he is the senior director for cybersecurity on the national security staff at the white house. he supports the cybersecurity coordinator, develops national and foreign policy, and coordinates the cybersecurity efforts of the federal executive branch. andy has had several roles at the white house including the leading the effort to develop the national strategy for trusted identities in cyberspace. andy is very well-rounded. he worked in roles at dhs, osd, nsa and the department of state. andy has a ph.d in computer science from the university of cambridge. an ms from inter, in international relations from the london school of economics, and a bs in computer science from georgia tech. andy has operational, technical, and policy experience. please welcome dr. andy

ozment. [applause] >> i'm definitely telling my mother i'm well-rounded. that's, i do want to emphasize the, use that e-mail address to send in any questions. really easy questions would be great. when i found out that's what we were doing i did contact my staff and ask them to sort of spam it with softballs so hopefully i will have a lot of easy yes, sir. -- questions. i greatly appreciate that kind introduction. it is a pleasure to follow suzanne, that is exactly the right set up because suzanne laid out the groundwork have how we have to intigrate cybersecurity and physical protection with respect to critical infrastructure. conceptually we all have under stood that for a long time but the last five or six years at least cybersecurity received a lot of the spotlight and i think we're reverting to the phase

we need to be in which cybersecurity and physical security are integrated and appreciated in the same context. suzanne mentioned the release of ppd-21, which came out concurrently with the executive order on cybersecurity. i'm not going to speak in any detail on that ppd other than to tell you, as suzanne did, that is really the integrating framework that directs the government's efforts and really highlights the need to take an all-hazards approach to protect critical infrastructure from physical threats, cyberthreats, et cetera. what i want to talk to you most about today is the executive order on critical infrastructure cybersecurity. president obama announced his executive order at the state of the union address. it occupied a significant portion of my life for the last few months. so it is nice to be able to speak freely about it in public. i want to highlight that executive order is critical infrastructure cybersecurity. so sometimes people ask she,

why don't you talk about research or development or workforce education. this isn't our overarching strategy or everything our office is working. we approach critical infrastructure security with respect with respect to cyberthreats. what is the core of the executive order? there are really four parts to i want to highlight. the first is information-sharing. the second is privacy and civil liberties. the third is the cybersecurity framework. and the fourth is the identification of critical infrastructure. let me walk through each of those in turn. first is information-sharing. information-sharing is complicated for the government because i think suzanne mentioned the value and the importance we place on hearing from the private sector and also on fostering conversations amongst private sector entities. time and again we find that the leading companies out there are the people on the cutting-edge of cybersecurity have unique and valuable insights and

we're all better off if they can share those insights with other companies and with the government. what we found however is in some sectors companies believe that there are impediments for their sharing with the government. so they may be concerned about liability, about privacy, et cetera. so we spent the last two years now working with the congress trying to develop amongst other activities, information-sharing standards to give folks in the private sector the confidence they need it share information with government. so unfortunately executive orders, they're not magical. they don't suddenly give us powers we didn't have and subvert the will of the congress. what they are, is the president's expression of intent and direction to the departments and agencies for them to use the authorities they already have. so unfortunately we don't have the ability to offer the kinds of things like liability protections that we hear from the private sector, or they need on information-sharing. so what we done in this executive order? what do we do on

information-sharing? the answer we focus on the government sharing information outwards. we do that through three ways. i'm really into lists. so you will hear a bunch number lists in this conversation. because i'm well-rounded. first it is clearances. we hear time and again from folks in critical infrastructure, look, we need more clearances. we have one person in our company with a clearance. he or she receives a threat information but doesn't have the operational ability to respond to that information, or correspondingly our operators can get the granular information but we lack the strategic threat picture. so we hear that message loud and clear. so the executive order directs dhs prioritize and increase issuances of clearance to owners and operators. dhs had a program on doing that. it was on hiatus for a year and a half for lots of

bureaucratic reasons which we conquered. so we restarted that program and directed dhs to really emphasize it. i think the folks in this room realize clearances are critical and necessary but they don't scale. if you look at all the critical infrastructure across the u.s., even just the critical infrastructure, there is no way which can give a clearance to everybody that needs to understand cybersecurity and operate to defend their critical infrastructure. that is just not going to happen we need to give more clearances, we also need other solutions. the second thing we're doing in information-sharing, is we're, we're stashing a policy and putting in place the ability to manage the, that, the government must dramatically increase the volume, the timeliness and the quality of cybersecurity threat information that we share with the private sector. i think you among most organizations understands that sharing information about threats is closely tied up to risks to that

information. when you share information too broadly sometimes it can lose its value because your adversaries learn of it and they change their techniques and the information is no longer useful. at the same time if you don't share information it is very rarely useful some what we've done here we said look, as we're doing this risk analysis on whether to share information on the private sector we need to emphasize, we need to put our finger on the scale a little bit, we'll say, look we'll benefit the we'll receive here. we'll take more risk as a government of the information we have collected. we think that is the only way we can make progress in cybersecurity, do a better job in sharing with the private sector because this is responsibility we all share and we know critical infrastructure owners and operators can't respond unless they're informed. there's, let me go back to that tradeoff though, there is something particularly interesting about it with respect to the classified threat indicators. so, again, we have some classified information, maybe about something very specific that an adversary

is doing. if we share that with folks in the private sector they will be able to detect that activity but our experience has shown when we share too broadly, again our adversaries learn and modify their behavior. so while we both must share information with the private sector we also need other ways of deriving value from our classified information to help protect the private sector. so the third thing the executive order does is it take as program called enhanced cybersecurity services and establishes it for all of critical infrastructure. this program was previously in place for the defense industrial base. folks in this room may know it as the dib pilot or even dex. i won't even go into that acronym. but let me explain a little bit in layman's terms. let's say you're at a base and you obviously want to protect the perimeter of your base. so you have a guard house at the entrance to that base. if you contracted that guardhouse out, in our

scenario you contracted that guardhouse out. you have a middle party providing the guard house service. they can deal with classified information. so the government gives them a classified photo of a bad guy and says don't let this guy into the base but you, within the base don't get to see the photo. so you're receiving the protection, the guardhouse is going to stop that guy if he tries to enter the base but we're also not revealing the classified information to everybody within the base. that's essentially the concept around ecs, enhanced cybersecurity services. so the government will work with cyber security service providers. we will provide them with classified threat indicators. they will then offer services to critical infrastructure owners and operators. and in those services they will detect and block malicious network activity. this is entirely a voluntary program. so a critical infrastructure owner and operator can choose to participate or not as they wish. but this is one mechanism by which we the government can

take better a advantage of our classified information and help the private sector take advantage of it, without unduly exposing it to our adversaries. let me move on to private city and civil liberties. anytime you're talking about sharing the information, sharing information with respect to cybersecurity, you have to be conscious of privacy and civil liberties and you have to make sure those are protected. that has been a priority of the administration and it continues to be so. so, while there are perhaps fewer concerns in the executive order because the focus is on sharing information outward, we have established a robust, oversight regime and in particular we have highlighted the fips. that is the government speak, right? if i don't insert an acronym every two or three minutes it is just not fun. the fips are the fair information practice principles. these date back to the 1970's when they were developed dealing with health records.

essentially it is what are the principles you need to use in considering privacy with respect to information? so we think it's important we establish these as a one of the principles that we're going to follow with respect to sharing information. and we really want to call attention to that. that is something we focused on in cybersecurity. the national strategy for trusted identities in cyberspace was mentioned earlier. that also really emphasized the fips. that is core aspect how we're tackling privacy and civil liberties in cybersecurity. let me move onto the cybersecurity framework, another key part of this executive order. the people in the this room understand cybersecurity. you're from organizations that are sophisticated. you're participating in the conversation about cybersecurity. that puts you ahead of most of the people that we're concerned about in critical [truck backing up] -- infrastructure. what we found is, unless a organization has a basic level of capability, a basic level of cybersecurity

defenses there is no amount of information-sharing we can do that will make them successful. go back to the guardhousenalgy. the guardhouse works when it is on the road into the base but if you don't know how many roads are going in and out of your base you can in the put guardhouses on them. and having a photo of the bad guy doesn't do you any good if you have no guardhouses and no understanding of the roads that are entering and exiting your base. and that's the situation we find sometimes in critical infrastructure. so, information-sharing a key component of cybersecurity but it has to be tightly coupled with basic cybersecurity standards and practices. we call these essentially cybersecurity hygiene. there is a basic hygiene that every organization needs to be doing. so okay, that's great, we need those. how can we encourage up take of cybersecurity standards? what we heard from folks in the private sector is we like to work with the

national institute of standards and technology. we're comfortable with this organization, nist. we know that they have a collaborative process where we in the private sector can share our experiences and what we've learned and then they can help us turn those into standards that are helpful for all of industry. so what we have done in this executive order, is we have tasked nist to work with the private sector to develop a cybersecurity framework. a framework is essentially a collection of standards. so it's not one particular standard, here's how you configure your wi-fi to secure it or at higher level here is how you do risk management and cybersecurity. instead it is a collection of standards we think constitute the core cybersecurity best practices and standards. now we're at the beginning of that process. we asked nist to produce a preliminary framework in eight months and a final framework in a year. they have already released an rfi, request for information. it's on the website at nist

i encourage everybody to go look at rfi, talk to the folks in their company who really do the cybersecurity operationally and contribute a response because this is only going to work if we find out from the companies that are most effective at cybersecurity what they're doing and how they're effective. great, we have a cybersecurity framework. what are we going to do with it? there are a couple of different approaches here. first, we have regulated critical infrastructure sectors. so there are sectors that already have a regulator. and what we've asked is, for those regulators to take the cyber secure framework, look at their existing regulation, and say, look are our regulations sufficient? the answer is yes, great. there's no need to redo or undo any good work that has already been done including the work, at the nrc, nuclear regulatory commission. are on the other hand if they identify that there are gaps, areas where they need

cybersecurity regulations to insure our critical infrastructure is protected against cybersecurity threat, we ask them to propose such regulation. if they do that they will follow the normal regulatory comment, notice and comment, so there won't be any surprises. that is one approach. i think it is worth highlighting that there are regulators that the white house can task and we've done that. there are also independent regulators and the white house can not and should not direct them. so what we have done is invited independent regulators to follow the same process. there are also plenty of critical infrastructure sectors and critical infrastructure period, that are not regulated. so what we are doing is creating a voluntary program, hosted by dhs to encourage companies to participate and sign up to implement the cybersecurity framework. we've left that program largely undefined right now because it will only succeed if companies want to

participate. so dhs will be working with folks in the private sector to develop more fully what this program looks like, and what would incentivize them to participate. we further more asked a number of departments and agencies to examine their existing authorities and report back on what they can do to help incentivize participation by the private sector. for example, acquisition. perhaps the government can use its acquisition authorities, its buying power essentially, to encourage participation in the cybersecurity framework. at the same time that's one of those areas where we know we don't have the full authorities that we need. so again, as part of our legislative proposals we're asking for new incentives that we can offer the private sector to participate in the cybersecurity framework. so when i talk to folks in the private sector about this, they say, well that all sound great, please tell me you're not creating another committee, another body we have to go

participate in. we heard you loud and clear. we are not creating any new organizations or public/private bodies here. we don't think we need to. we have sector coordinating councils that already exist and through which did. hs and sector specific agencies collaborate with critical infrastructure. we have information-sharing and analysis centers through which the government shares information. and, through which firms share information with each other and with the government. and we have a number of difficult organizations, specific to individual sectors, that are how those sectors have decided to self-organize and share information or work with the government. so we think we have, the organizations exist. there is no need for a new organization. so i know i've taken a lot of your time and i see people very slowly, cutting and eating. trying to be quiet. i appreciate that. let me emphasize in closing,

we need your help. if you're in the private sector, we need you to participate with us. this process only works, this executive order will only make a difference if we all work together to implement it. that means contributing to the nist framework, and you can do that right now through the rfi they have posted on their website. that means participating in isacs and sector coordinating councils or any other organization your sector uses to work with the government. government and industry, physical and cybersecurity, if we don't integrate all of those things, then there's no way we can make progress on this so let me leave you with that thought and thank you for your time and i'm happy to take questions. [applause] >> thank you, dr. ozment. our first question is regarding the potential risk of the private sector or

corporate active cyberdefense or perhaps even cyber vigilantism having effect on national security and how this is being addressed with the private sector? >> you know, i think the law in this area is pretty clear and, so i, for anybody who is thinking about cyber vigilantism, i would recommend you talk it some lawyers about that law. it, computer fraud and abuse act if you need a further pointer there. and i think that really says, everything that is necessary. we as a society have to be lawful. we have these laws for a reason. and, please, obey them. [laughing] >> thank you. the next question is regarding the incentives for private industry and different trying to find out the what the best practices might be. what specific incentives do you need from legislation in order for the framework and

information-sharing to be successful and have you found any through the different pilot programs to have been successful to date? >> you know with respect to legislation i'm not going to go into specifics. it is the beginning of a new congress and we'll have a lot of conversation with that congress. i think we've been very clear about the things that we need in legislation. we need a comprehensive suite of different things. so i'm not going to go into more detail on that. with respect to incentives, you know that's another area where we would love to hear from the private sector. what can we do to encourage you to share? i think it is worth noting there are sectors that do currently do a good job of sharing information between and amongst themselves and with the government. so not every sector feels like there are impediments to information sharing. if you're in a sector that feels reluctant to share information, one thing we can do, while we encourage the congress to provide cybersecurity legislation, one thing we can do is look at existing successful sharing models in other

sectors and help communicate those models to other sectors that are struggling to share information. >> thank you. could you go into a few more specifics what is envisioned to occur or implemented because of the executive order? what might result from the executive order? >> hopefully a lot of change. on the information-sharing side, we're going to see more clearances. we're going to see more sharing of information, and part of our tasks to the different relevant departments and agencies here is also to create systems and processes to track how much information are we sharing so that we can manage that and hold those departments and agencies accountable for changing their culture and sharing more information. with ecf, what i hope we see is a vibrant service offering that is taken up by lots of critical infrastructure owners and operators and they find valuable. with respect to the cybersecurity framework, i

think we may see some updating of regulations and regulatory, regulating critical infrastructure sectors. what we think we will see is a have vibrant voluntary voluntary security program. we think there are enough firms out there that recognize the threat. that appreciate that the risks to them may not be a short-term risk. it may be a longer-term risk but it is significant risk nonetheless and that there's a real benefit to their participating in the program. . .

>> what measures are dhs putting in place to ensure cooperation of the defense inventory of their critical infrastructure? >> so, one of the parts of the framework that we have mentioned lays out is that with respect to a given sector, a sector specific agencies are really the interlocutor between the sector and a government. dhs has an overarching coordination role. in addition to being the sector to the agency itself for a number of sectors. so when you come to the defense industrial base the department of defense is a sector specific agency. so folks in the industrial defense base, your relationship with the dod and the duty relationship with you through the program, it is a change. >> thank you so much for providing your view, and new for

us to have dod so we appreciate that. so from that perspective would like to share our thanks, as well as your participation, i think you heard while ms. baldwin with you, we will be providing a donation to our s.t.e.m. education fund and then you get to walk away with is really wonderful coffee mug. [laughter] >> thanks very much. [applause] >> all right. as we carry on, i'm going to invite him back up to introduce our third block of emerging technology presentations. just for you guys to track the agenda we are a little bit behind but not too bad -- >> we will leave this conference at this point. you can see it in its entirety on our website. the parts which shown you available on our website, c-span.org. be sure to join us later today

for more like programming from the c-span networks. at 4 p.m. eastern remarks from japanese prime minister abe. is expected talk about relations between the u.s. and japan. again you can see that light at 4 p.m. eastern on c-span. we will continue with our primetime booktv programming later tonight with a look at the civil rights movement. that gets annoyed 8 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. also on c-span3, it's american history to be focusing on american artifacts. >> earlier today former senator sam nunn took part in a form on the federal budget and military issues. we wis were sure the entire evet later in the program but here's a brief look at what he had to say.

>> let me just take just a moment to point out a few things were i think are very valuable, and icy agreement between the two papers. first of all i think both of them a great on, that overall deficit reduction is out so the critical for national security, and admiral mullen has said this over and over. the biggest threat is the deficit problem, the debt problem. so that's what i think most people agree with. you all wrong. the second point i think they both agree with is reform and defense within the defense budget is just as important as the top one. both are important, but both have to be addressed. it's not just how much the topline is. it's what you do within the defense budget. the third point i think both agree on, and that is to sequester is not the way to cut. it's the worst possible way. erskine bowles said the other day it's stupid, and it is. i think it is really

counterproductive. if you gave defense the same numbers but gave them 10 years to do it and a lot of flexibility, it makes an enormous difference what comes out of it into 1010 years. even if you come out with the same basis dollars. the fourth point i think there's agreement on in both papers is personnel costs are unsustainable. we've already talked about that. that has to be known. the housed to come out of education. if it's not, changes will not happen. the next point is, and michelle will have a duty on this but both papers indicate that force size has got to be reduced. the size of the forces. you can quarrel about how you take the cuts, which services, but overall you can't have the same number of people that you have now, and meet these budget requirements. the next point i think there's agreement on and i think we should not neglect of this one in the debate and discussion because i think it's going to be a national understanding on this, much more so. and it added we're going to have

to have a more prudent and more we strain decision-making in terms of commitment of military forces to solve problems around the world. we simply cannot continue to make the kind of decisions we've made in the last 10-20 years. and, finally, on the process site, if we're smart i think both papers indicated if we're smart we should be able to retain the strongest and most capable military in the world. but both papers as and policy makers will make the tough decisions. that's another assumption of both papers. that is not automatic. and without leadership, that's not going to happen. >> at age 25, she was one of the wealthiest widows in the colonies, and during the revolution while in her mid '40s, she was considered an enemy by the british who threaten to take her hostage. later, she would become our nation's first first lady at age 57. meet martha washington monday

night in the first program of c-span's new weekly series, first ladies can influence an image. we will visit some of the placem influenced her life from including colonial williamsburg, mount vernon, valley forge and philadelphia, and be part of the conversation about martha washington, phone calls, tweets and facebook posts live monday night at nine eastern on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> up next on india's foreign secretary ranjan mathai, yesterday he called the relationship between u.s. and india a 21st century partnership for peace, prosperity and progress. the secretary is here in washington through today for a series of meetings, including with secretary of state john kerry. it was the featured guest at the carnegie endowment for international peace. jessica mathews moderated the discussion.

>> ladies and gentlemen, good morning. i'm jessica mathews, president of the carnegie endowment for international peace, and it's my pleasure to welcome you this morning to this conversation on the future of one of the most important relationships to the united states, u.s.-india relationship. we are honored to have with us our special guest, the secretary of india, ambassador ranjan mathai, who brings to this post a long and distinguished history of public service. he joined the indian foreign service in 1974, and since then has served in capitals all over the world from iran to tel aviv, and as recent as ambassador to paris where his support -- what he was appointed in 2011. here at carnegie we are fortunate to have hosted many of ambassador mathai's predecessors, including india's

current envoy to the united states. this legacy is assigned i think of the deep ties that we've developed here at carnegie with india, and in india, we've been fortunate to have the scholars, george here for many years working on subcontinent, and in this past year we have drastically expanded our program with the addition of -- now directing the program here, and others, all of them who are working on doing serious scholarship on india and the rest of the subcontinent. we are working hard and eagerly, looking forward to opening carnegie center in new delhi in 2013, and we very much appreciate the help and advice that we receive from senior leaders from the indian government on this important step.

india's relationship with the united states is deeply important for both countries. and presidents obama's words, the relationship between the united states and india bound by our shared interests and values will be one of the defining partnerships in the 21st century. and it's appropriate that foreign secretary mathai will be the third foreign secretary who will be meeting with secretary kerry in his new position, so just at the outset as he develops his agenda, it's appropriate and a sign of the importance of the relationship. it is of course a defining moment for the region. the war in afghanistan is a territorial dispute in east asia. u.s. and india have a myriad of overlapping interests, and a crucial role to play together in

the future. george lutz of the foreign secretary join us this morning to share his perspective on the deepening strategic partnership between the united states and india. we will have time after his remarks for questions. he says only comfortable questions. and because after all, in india they never have uncomfortable questions. but please join me in welcoming foreign secretary mathai. [applause] >> thank you very much president jessica mathews. friends of india and the united states, distinguished ladies and gentlemen, since the president of the united states has already described to me the relationship as a defining one, i've decided to call the title of my

presentation today somewhat more modestly slightly, a 21st century partnership for peace, prosperity and progress your thank you for this opportunity to share some thoughts with you on a theme that probably takes up the conversation from where i left it last year in this great city. and as i did last year, let me say that it was remarkable how much has changed in our relationship since i was here a quarter of a century ago at the embassy in washington. i think i think is, therefore, timely. are we on track so that one of the young diplomats in your embassy in their late or ours in washington could find a quarter century from now that another positive paradigm shift has taken place? i wouldn't assume anyone can see up to 2038, but i hope to suggest some ideas to take stock of where the relationship is come and to consider the way

forward as a new administration establishes itself in the united states so that we do keep on track. in doing so i trust i will not be accused of plagiarism as your esteemed institution has recently prepared a paper by my friend ashley tellis, with the subtitle, sustaining task at time. the subtitle is sustaining the transformation in u.s.-india relations. the headline was of course the eye-catching. opportunities unbound. but headlines often leave one wondering. like the one in the newspaper which said, squad helps dog bite victim. not all readers clearly saw whether dogfights as an adjective or whether the squads assistance to the doctor anyway, for me the subject is clear. i am part of the squad called upon to sustain the remarkable

transformation that has brought the u.s. and india closer together than we've ever been in the past. and i think it's an extraordinary privilege. to an audience such as this i do not need to dwell on history, or the historical nature of this confirmation. but it is worth emphasizing that the nature of this change has been unprecedented. the centerpiece was the india-u.s. civil nuclear arrangement and all that went into it and have since emerged from it. the problem, of course, is that everything since that definitive moment tends to be compared with the audacity of what we dared do together in putting this arrangement in place. this places a somewhat unfair strain of expectation, but i think it is ultimately misplaced. because the truth of it is that much that has happened since is equally significant in the game of nations in which we have

evolved a new normal in the relationship. and let me cite a few instances of what i mean by the new normal. going beyond the regular exchanges between our heads of state and government, both bilaterally and at all multilateral events, the strategic dialogue which is held annually with unprecedented levels of ministry participation on both sides. it is now normal that we have over 100 visits at the senior official and higher level exchanges per year. it is normal that our dialogue architecture covers the gamut of government ought to be, from social sector measures to trade, global financial policy coordination, from energy to defense, counterterrorism and homeland security. at our interdepartmental review meeting which was held in new delhi in the beginning of january, we identified over 30 dialogue mechanisms, connecting almost all major departments of

our government. we want to know more about the architect, sitting there. it is now entirely normal that are foreign offices consult each other on a wide range of global and regional challenges. already we have held three rounds of a trilateral between the u.s., japan and india, and several rounds of bilateral consultations on east asia. just two days ago, we hosted the second round of our trilateral dialogue with afghanistan. that is, the u.s., india and afghanistan. we hold regular consultations on strategic security issues, covering nonproliferation, disarmament and export controls. we are working together closely on india's membership of the four multilateral export control regimes. we hope to expand the dialogues to governmental areas, and that is also now normal. in short, in a few years

consultation has become a habit. we have created a comfortable space to exchange opinions and trusted partners, with both candor and often convergence. this is not just because we enjoy talking, that we do, or being connected. as india's horizons expand with the growth of our strategic and economic interests, we will need to talk regularly about real-world concerns to the u.s., which from our perspective continue to both critical interests and a vital presence across the entire globe your this is as it should be in a partnership that is genuinely strategic. there is no hint here, however, of taking lessons from each other. we are told, you know, we took the 10 commandments from you a thousand years ago. you turn around and said yes, but you can keep them.

[laughter] ladies and gentlemen, i do not suggest that the partnership is already at a stage of maturity, or that we are in complete accord on all issues. if that were so, i in some of you would be looking for other avenues of gainful employment. i'm aware that converting the civil nuclear agreement into expected commercial arrangement is still a work in progress. some see the work, some say progress. in a more general sense, the each recognition that it is probably not in the nature of either of our nations to be in complete agreement with any other on many issues. someone said where perhaps not on the same page. since i love mixing metaphors, let me say even if we cannot be on the same line of the script on all occasions, both of us are increasingly willing to be from the same score even if we do not always play the notes the same way. i want to reiterate this point,

because the mutuality of benefit in our partnership is measured in more than merely dollars and cents, important as those are. it is also measured in a growing realization that the rise of a democratic, pluralistic and liberal india is in the fundamental interests of the united states. it is not called the peaceful rise of india because it is self-evidently peaceful. that is a strong, prosperous, innovative, globally engaged united states is fundamentally in india's interest. we in india have no evangelical tradition that we share the conception that the spread of democracy, open societies, and rule-based multilateral frameworks will shape a better world order. at the more monday level of how we see india's growing anxious converging with the u.s. strategic outlook, let me outline a few broad areas. i will start with her own continent, asia.

i think i should address a misconception that has secured the force of conviction through multiple reader ration. india does not have a misgiving over your re-engages or rebalancing or indeed pivoting towards issue. while i recognize that the policy is still evolving, enhanced american economic, diplomatic and maritime engagement in the department of the indo pacific region takes forward what is a recognized part of independent ages experience. moreover, it synchronizes with india's own enhanced engagement with our extended neighborhood. the most recent example of this engagement was very successful india asean and india.

[inaudible] this policy of synchronization is on our conviction that regional connectivity, economic integration, development and cooperative security are the surest guarantor of peace and stability across our region. this is the spirit in which we have engaged in the east asia summit, and in the past discussion on the regional conferences economic partnership. it was with this in mind that we in india work to bring the u.s. into what is called the indian ocean rim association for regional cooperation, ior-arc, as an observer. our engagement with partners in southeast asia and beyond must contribute to the creation of a mutually acceptable regional security and economic architecture. such architecture must be based on commonly accepted

international rules. it should facilitate respect for international law, freedom of navigation, maritime commerce and communications. we are happy to work with all our partners towards evolving a larger regional architecture for the whole of asia. by virtue of our geography and our historical connections, we have vital interests both in the heartland and in the ring lands of asia. it is useful, therefore, that in our neighborhood and beyond we have an increase in improved dialogue with the u.s. afghanistan is one of the key areas in which we need to continue to hold close and candid consultations. it is also an area in which there is greater need for us to be upset be frank with each other. to start with, we sincerely respect and honor the

significant sacrifices made by our american and afghan partners in securing and reconstructing afghanistan. india, too, has given lives and it's been almost $2 billion in reconstruction assistance. and we intend to remain engaged with afghanistan and its other international partners. we continue to support efforts to bring afghanistan into regional connectivity frameworks. we are also helping lead the effort to transform the economy of afghanistan, including in its evolution to a trade and investment-based economy. now, why is india involved? very simply, history has taught us that whatever happens in afghanistan has and will continue to affect our security directly and materially. we have not forgotten the terrorist havens that targeted us, springing up as afghanistan descended into chaos in the 1990s. obviously, we do not want that to happen again.

it is for this reason that the international accepted red lines must be respected in whatever reconciliation models are considered. so also, actions in support of the political transaction -- transition should not undermine afghan institutions of governance. we all need a credible government after 2014 as well. but most of all, we are yet to see any evidence that supports the notion of a dividing line separating al qaeda and other terrorist and extremist groups. or indeed, that these groups and those who support them have either had and the tiffany or made a real strategic we assessment of their objectives. to us it makes little sense to draw lines of distinction that most of these groups or their sponsors are themselves not prepared to do, at least not just yet, either in word or

deed. in this context, i cannot over emphasize the point that there is and will remain a preeminent security challenge for both our countries. our convergence on the source and the nature of the threat in our region has never been greater. it is therefore a challenge that provides as an opportunity for enhanced cooperation in combating terror and protecting our people from it. this is even more of an imperative today, as we move into a period of significant uncertainty in the next few years. behind this regional concern lies a general conviction which we have about combating terror, in which led us to pledge support of about $1 million at the donor conferences even on the situation in mali, which is quite distant from us. not surprisingly, counterterrorism is a key dimension of our bilateral partnership. quite obviously it also has a strong public residents. it isn't very of our work which

we must continue to strengthen, including in exchange information and working to bring terrorists to justice. we are aware of the specificities of legal procedure and their requirements, but we need to commit to the goal of assisting our authorities in the pursuit of justice. cybersecurity, to which the president of the united states made a reference, and counterpiracy are also areas in which our two countries can work together, particularly since the terrorist threat very often falls into these areas of challenges. we already have working groups dealing with our cybersecurity issues, and we feel that there's much more we can achieve together, including an operational aspects of managing and mitigating these challenges. ladies and gentlemen, further a field at her west we are faced with a complex situation in the gulf region and iran. our relations with the gcc entries are vital,

self-evidently so, with millions of our citizens working there, over 5 million. and crucial energy, financial and commercial interest. we have very old ties with iran, which emerged as a critical and reliable source of oil over many decades. we do have a beneficial relationship covering trade in food, medicine and other everyday commodities. get we also recognize and emphasized the need for iran to fulfill its international obligations and to address questions raised in the iaea about its nuclear program to restore confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of that program. we sincerely hope that the talks to be held in kazakhstan, i believe on the 26th, will make some progress in resolving this issue. from where we are situated, iran is also an essential element in our access to afghanistan in in the medium-term the central issue. it affords us the access to afghanistan that we are

prevented from having directly. iran also, as i said, situated in that region where we have vital economic interests, and it is therefore important that we continue to have quiet bilateral conversations in regard to iran. we have also shared interests and democratic development and economic growth in the rest of south asia and that's a long theme and i believe this to questions. i will simply say that we have real opportunities ahead for building on these shared interests and ideas. in the wider middle east which are concerns over the crisis in city and instability in northern africa. india has supported the democratic aspirations of the people of the region, but have been cautious about externally enforced change. in general, we believe that external involvement only fuels instability. in effect, the search for

military solutions to political challenges has greeted many humanitarian crises, and has pushed the region on a slippery slope toward civil strife, and as we now see, the spread of weaponry into dangerous hands. looking eastward of india, we are working to enhance the full range of our relationship with myanmar, enhancer historic links with a neighbor and take forward our shared interest in a contemporary setting. we are encouraged by the changes in internal and external policies of that country. we continue our dialogue for government. we've had a number of interaction with the president and the speaker, and also with, our engagement with daw aung san suu kyi, who paid us a visit in november. a historic visit of president obama a few months ago, and the easing of sanctions should help myanmar should help take for the process every engagement with

the world and then restore its historic role in the region. even on global and extra regional issues, ladies and gemma we are developing the habit of broader cooperation. our prime minister and president obama agreed in 2010 that we would begin to work together in a trilateral mode, and capacity enhancement projects in africa, and also in afghanistan. we have now put in place the software for an i.t. enabled open government platform, using i.t. to bring open governance to the people enjoy partnership with the government of rwanda, and we intend to expand this soon in partnership with kind of. similarly we are working with ait pashtun just a d. for specialist from kenya, malawi and liberia. one of india's leading self-help agencies, sewa, is working with usaid and the government of afghanistan to offer train the trainers course is to afghan

women so when can be empowered to our livelihoods in the country. ladies and gentlemen, what does all this mean to our bilateral relationship? quite a lot actually. it feeds into and fines on growing convergence is around. defense is a key pillar of our bilateral cooperation. it bears mentioning that from where a state where this trade was, to borrow ambassador black with a memorable phrase, flat as a chapati. there is today nearly $9 billion in bilateral defense treaty i dined out on this figure when i spoke in washington last you also. but it will grow over time. it will assuredly not be stuck like the chapati joke or this was originally an ethnic joke. but now we politically corrected it. [inaudible] how many chapati can

eat on an empty stomach? the answer is 25. come to my house department. you can do a neat all 25 chapati. [inaudible] as soon as you finish the first chapati, your stomach is no longer empty. they both laughed. he says how many chapati can eat on an empty stomach? the indian chiefs is 30. he said if you're going to say 25 i was going to say nice joke. [laughter] our armed forces are developing the habit of closer cooperation training together and through bilateral military exercises. today, our armed forces conduct the maximum number of military exercise with u.s. armed forces. we are currently in the midst of an effort to find ways in which

we resolve process related rigidities in our respective systems. we do need to find ways to make procedures more compatible if the partnership is to develop to mutual benefit. we also hope to find ways in which we can genuinely transform our defense partnership by significantly strengthening the technological dimension of the partnership so that it has a mutually beneficial impact on the development of india's defense industry. trade and economic cooperation continued to increase. both services and goods trade are up, over $100 billion now. and we're hopeful that in the near future, our bilateral trade policy forum can be held. and beating is indeed overdue. just before i walked in here, i was reminded that there is a reference in space, another area

i could cooperative i commend of that. we have, in fact, develop very significant capabilities in this area that are entirely compatible with the united states as our partner but it is essential that we reengage in a more focused manner especially because of the changed policy environment in india. as you know, the government has announced a range of reform measures to make india a more attractive investment destination. that effort has been to address a long-standing demand from our own businesses most of all, for second and third generation reforms, which have been pushed through with significant political will and which we hope will evoke a suitable response, not only from our own industry but also from our foreign partners. these new measures offer significant openings in single and multi-day in retail, aviation and the financial sector. some measures have already been rolled out, and companies have started opening stores. brooks brothers, slightly above my pay grade, but fossil and

can't. ikea of sweden has also obtained clearance to set up its own units in india. the government has also pushed forward on raising the ceiling on foreign and domestic investment and financial services as well, although the last item requires parliamentary approval. we hope for a positive outcome. meanwhile, however, we hear from our u.s. partners that there are still elements on which there is a way to come at least in terms of new policies in force. these are business decisions. however, waters can only be tested i taking the plunge and what has consistently been proved to be a large and profitable market. i do recall having, seen a study of which the researcher was hard put to find them multinational company that has lost money in india. i should also underlined that the focus of reform and policy change is most sustainable when it is recognized that the policy

measures india is taking live in its own interest. we will do what we need to do for our own sake. however, it should be recognize that what we do will naturally create benefit for our partners. we also your complaint of both sides on a number of matters. procurement policies that are intended to promote industrial growth in india are raised with us. just as the u.s. has also identified industry as a key driver of employment, we do need to do so. the simple fact is, we cannot harness the demographic dividend promised by our young population without developing industry. on our side we have concerns regarding non-immigrant visas and our ability pashtun inability to initiate even a conversation about a totalization agreement. this is necessary we feel as a would begin to address the concerns of the law-abiding, taxpaying expatriate indians

working in the u.s. it is this group of people who serve at the same time as the strongest and most committed advocates for our relationship in both countries. this is particularly difficult to explain when we have concluded such agreements with other major g8 economies including, recently, with canada. we know to deadline to conclude negotiate for trans-pacific partnership. and your plans now announced for discussing a comprehensive trans-atlantic partnership, and at the same time we are moving forward with comprehensive economic cooperation agreements with asean, singapore, japan and korea. and we're also in dialogue with the eu. we have been talking about a bilateral investment treaty, but not necessarily with a due sense of urgency. for meeting since negotiations started in 2007 does not suggest a great deal of haste. much as it might surprise, we want this as much as you did because it is also of interest to us.

ladies and gentlemen, important as they are, market access issues, and goods and services, and i to be seen perspective for they can be made to define narrative. why we must work to sort out these challenges, it is not in our interest to let such issues define the relationship. this is why we have proposed to create an ad hoc clearinghouse mechanism to discuss market access issues in the trade policy forum. i believe that we also need to find a new positive narrative that can bind our countries closer together. one such opportunity i feel is in the energy sector. without a shirt access to energy inputs in sufficient quantities, we will not be able to sustain our economic development. therefore, an enduring in the u.s. partnership in energy should not only cover technological and regular aspects, but also established commercial partnerships in energy. as the u.s. evolves from being

an importer of energy to a net exporter of energy, we hope that we can develop mutually beneficial partnerships in the hydrocarbons sector, in renewable energy, biofuels, and then you energy efficient technology. in each of these cases there can immediate benefits for both sides. at me cite a few examples. you're interested in exporting natural gas and intention to export a non-fta countries, even if just agreed upon, would help stabilize internationally traded lng prices which are at historic highs. indian investment i in the oil d gas sector will not only help add the image transportation linkages, but also to refining and shipping facilities here. long-term partnerships between us in energy will also help us in india diversify our sources of supply much more globally. biofuels from nonfood crops and energy efficiency are two areas which are already identified in the bilateral dialogue.

good management, self-healing and smart grid technologies, and the capacity to bring renewable energy onto grids could be mutually beneficial areas of exchange. our regulations and processes involving large projects are being we examined by a cabinet committee on investment. among the first which the cabinet committee has taken up are those relating to energy, specifically to oil and gas. progress is being made on simplifying the approval process for oil and gas exploration blocks. u.s. companies have world recognized strengths in the industry and we hope to have move ahead we will be able to do in new players in india. i believe that b the exciting yu find off the coast of east africa, and northwest australia, will lead to greater interest in the areas of the indian ocean basin. then the extraordinary transformation caused by the shale gas them could also bring large quantities of u.s. coal

into a global market facing supply constraints. so as i see it, there is much that we can talk about. education is also a strategic area for our partnership the indian part of the reform and a gradation of higher learning infrastructure india, you'll help support modernization of the supply line of trained workers on the other. think about it. millions of young indians will be coming onto the job market in the next few decades. the u.s. can, through partnership with new educational institutions in india, enable them to be productively and gainfully employed. the education partnership can span the entire range of options at one level, we would like to see -- we would like to create mutually beneficial partnerships instead of the art institutions of learning. this would also provide a basis upon which we develop our growing partnership and science, technology and innovation, and in fulfillment of the vision of

our prime minister and president obama, is what is called the singh-obama knowledge initiative. we also need to develop specific immediately employment skills. we need better community colleges in the. we made a good beginning with a special event focusing on creating community colleges and how they would work in india. as many as 12 american community colleges were represented for which undersecretary sonnenschein visited india. ladies and gentlemen, let me draw my presentation to a few clear conclusions and recommendations on the way forward. first from our perspective, closer and more effective cooperation between us on terrorism is critical. there is strong public support in india for this aspect of our partnership. this has an impact on the bilateral and trilateral consultations and afghanistan and the region. we recognize and welcome your enduring commitment to the security and stability of afghanistan.

we hope that our concerns also factor into your calculations. second, the relationship between his must now stand squarely on its own merits. it has taken decades for us to stop viewing each other from the prison of each other's relationships with third countries. as you recalibrate your presence in afghanistan, we hope that the transformation of our relationship can accelerate, based on the unique merits of what each side brings to the table. third, we need to do more to make things go operation part of the normal. we can do so by finding simple process solutions to enable your defense companies to make value for money this to meet our defense requirements. it would also help forced to evolve our relationship towards codesigned and joint production of this material. in short, let's actually move to make this happen, rather than inviting each other to move first. fourth, let's recognize that trade and economic cooperation must be about more than finding fault with each other's

policies. we must find ways to work more closely together in this context. there will be value for u.s. companies to engage in our effort to build several industrial ecosystems in india in a manner that is compatible with each other's market or employment interest. we believe the u.s. industrial and manufacturing sector could witness a very significant revival led by your energy and chemical industries. we ourselves expect a return to high gdp growth trajectory, by high, winning over 7.5%. in a years time for a little over the. our economy will be pursued. we expect that the policy emphasis on manufacturing will start showing tangible results. as in the industrialized, the scope for beneficial cooperation will only increase, whether in terms of r&d, technology agreements, integration of manufacturing processes, or trade. fifth, we cannot allow the differences we have in trade in goods or movement of services to

dominate the discourse. we have at the same time to create forums to discuss these issues and we look forward. six, energy and education are strategic openings for the u.s. to invest in the future of india. as many of our american friends remind us, enabling the rise of india is, or should be, a strategic end in itself for the u.s. these are sectors in which the u.s. would be part of such a strategy. seventh, we have begun to work together well in a number of multilateral for. the g20 is a case in point. we appreciate the support for u.s. for our members in various multilateral export control regimes. there is room for us to do more together as her interests coincide with yours in the maintenance of a strong and stable global and regional architecture. however to keep this process on the rails it is important that the signaling remains positive. we have been told that the u.s.

has placed a strategic bet on india's rise. therefore, it hardly seems like a good game to accept strategic partners from those working to make you lose that bet. and then we need to display toward each other more of that commodity. patients. you demonstrate that in a bind measure, listing to me for half an hour of talk without a single slogan or a catchy phrase to explain how much progress we feel we have made. but the evolution of our relationship cannot be conducted in the elites, from one transfer made of moment to another. instead, we must recognize the process of drawing us closer together would be consistent attention, regular consultation, regular cooperation, continued high level engagement. it is essential that we continue to invest in our engagement at the highest levels, ladies and gentlemen, and this is my final point, because this partnership is really in our but give national interest. just this morning i read with

great interest the outstanding case made yesterday by secretary kerry at the university of virginia, on why the resources spent on foreign policy are in the fundamentally interests of your great country. and he then referred specifically to the middle-class indians creating jobs. and it not only struck me that the kc made could quite easily have been made by my own minister, but hopefully -- equally our mutual investment in the india-u.s. partnership is actually all about making our people safer and more prosperous. it is also about jointly addressing the growing complexities of a world in which the people of india and the american partners face many of the same global challengechallenge s. and it is working towards addressing this strategic reality that our partnership will be defined in the decades ahead. we look forward to keeping our leadership engaged in this vital relationship, both at the level of the two governments, but also with the support of this

remarkable partnership with all of you here today. thank you. [applause] >> we have microphones. please introduce yourself to the secretary, and we have 15 minutes. so let's begin right here. >> thank you. i enjoyed the presentation it very informative. you touched a very important on -- [inaudible] cybersecurity and defense cooperation are the two. as you know, china and america -- in his defense, modernizations. what do you think about these two important topics, and a -- [inaudible] thank you.

>> right in the front here. >> yeah, this is a defense oriented also, bill tucker. we represent a number of financial services companies that have gone into india with apparent ease, but the defense companies have a problem, our defense companies to come and that they have to hire someone, get them in office before they even do anything. and that's a barrier to our company entering the country. and so if you could ease that barrier i think the u.s. defense companies would explore the market at least, you know, more frequently. spent and we will take one more right here, then we will move over. >> thank you very much. minister, thank you for that wonderful presentation.

i come from eu agency in brussels. the one part of your speech related to the economic trade relations, where unusually i would say that the tone of the discussion probably if you make it in brussels would be more positive than it was now here in washington. right now, andy is engaged in deep discussions with the european union. the next few months will be quite critical given the fiscal calendar. i wonder if you could say a few comments about that? and also given the fact that eu and the u.s. will be trying over the next few years degrade the transatlantic free trade agreement. to what extent does that leave india and other big players more into discussion, both with u.s. and eu on these matters? >> well, thank you. cybersecurity is an area where i think there's a lot to india and u.s. can do together. we have, in fact, become to see cybersecurity dialogue, very large number of partners.

and i did agree. i think this is an area where we need to engage. as it happens when these objects emerge, a very large number of players on both sides are involved in anything the first they need to do is to identify the structure to which you can begin the dialogue. but certainly i think definitely this is one area we see india we look forward. on the defense cooperation i think i did try in my presentation to state what we could do. beyond the areas which are already functioning, which are regular exchanges and consultations between our defense policy, regular defense exercises, and we are now defense procurement. beyond this that we have to step up to the joint r&d production. i think that's the direction in which we need to go. i am a little puzzled, that you need to get in office and hire

someone before you go in. i would've thought that you are going in, to b be useful to have an office in excellent work for you. but i see that, that is a precondition, then i need to look at this little more closely. i'm not very for me with all the rules regarding -- this could be part of the -- [inaudible]. >> before you do anything up to hire someone open an office. >> okay. this is something which i need to come back with more information. perhaps my colleague will be able to answer. india eu, yes. i would be, i think remiss if i convey the impression that with our economic relationship with the united states that i was trying to sound -- it's not what i was trying to do, was to say that with all trading partners, inevitably you get involved with the market issues and arguments

over one particular aspect of trade or the other. what i was hoping was that since all of america and its need to focus on that, put all these into something like a trade policy forum, separately. by the media, give made substantial improvements. i believe is going to be a meeting in able where hope we'll be able to find -- [inaudible]. we have made a great deal of progress in matters relating to industry, agriculture. and services, napster would make it is certainly getting to a lot of attention. we are conscious that negotiating time and negotiating attention, yet the same set of people who are debating these issues with all the partners. we need to conclude this and we certainly will be looking for a win-win proposition. spent we have a group right here. >> hello.

i'm from brookings, next-door. i really will put you on the spot here, but this just came up. it has to do with what i was going to ask earlier, there's been most recent reported, now by al-jazeera, that there's been bomb blasts, of which there's been 11 reported dead, and now injured are rising. getting to my question of, what coherent strategy for counterterrorism has been developed within the government to address these growing issues of homegrown terrorists? >> and right next, and then we will take the one behind. >> so what is your opinion on the latest development that is happening in mali lex thank you. >> and right behind there. thanks. i'm a journalist. i wonder if it's been on your

marks in afghanistan, misguided to draw a distinction between al qaeda and other groups. do you think it is wrong to reach a peace settlement with the taliban parts would that be useful? >> well, first of all i think the terrible bomb blast do underline what i think emphasized throughout the presentation is that terrorism remains one of the most serious threats we face, and this is one of the issues united states and india has worked on closely together. i'm not sure that it could be homegrown terrorism. we have had a number of tax which have been traced to inspiration outside the country i don't know yet. we will have to wait until the investigation reports are being completed. but counterterrorism certainly has attracted the attention of our government at the highest

levels. we have developed a number of new mechanisms, both in terms of intelligence, in terms of the coordination between central government and the states because policing the estate subject. and, indeed, for instant checking and working out -- but like every other country, we are on the frontline of terrorism. we perhaps a little more than others, and we need to reinforce our efforts. and we will certainly be hoping to work very closely with our u.s. partners in dealing with this. i would also say that in terms of the kind of cooperation we are talking not only about actual, the auschwitz in with terrorism when it occurs, but also intelligence sharing, again prevented. these are areas we are shortly

going to be spending a lot of attention. as regard to afghanistan question, what i was trying to say was that drawing the distinction, it's not clear yet. we have seen, with no evidence to suggest it is a very clear difference between those who, who call themselves al qaeda, work for al qaeda, who are sponsoring them, and the other in afghanistan. we are suggesting a degree of caution, that that kind of distinction is actually something that can be made. right now we don't see that. if it were to emerge, yes, that is something we could talk about. we are faced with a very big situation were as you know, the former president is now on the seventh or eighth, ninth day at our embassy.

he simply walked in the there's no legal definition of what he's doing there. he's just spending some time there. as far as we're concerned there are two aspects to the issue. one is, there's a legal system which is pursuing him on which being an internal matter of the mali, we would have nothing to say. but we have made a political point that it is moving to an election but it is announce in september 7 is the date of the next election. and the election to be free and fair, and all the major political parties must be free to participate. this is the basic solution -- position we've taken. we're discussing the matter with the government. we hope we can find some answer to the solution. spent okay, let's go to the

back. >> minister, i'm from poland to you mentioned in your speech be a very sufficient dialogue with unisys on east asia. can you tell us what -- this dialogue covers -- [inaudible]. just a bit elaborate if you could, on an agenda. thank you. >> well, this is part of the usual foreign minister to foreign minister sometimes with also involved, discussion relating to how you view development in eastern asia. we also have as i said, trilateral dialogue with japan, and u.s. but none of his is in any other country. it's simply a sharing of you, a sharing of opinions. and some issues coordination of we have a project to one

particular area is in myanmar. because myanmar has since emerged as huge needs. we're working there is a large number of projects, road building, things like that. .. in your country as well as in afghanistan that irritate the american forces. where do you see opportunities

for cooperation between the countries? >> there are many safe havens for terrorism, and it is not my intention to get into a specific name game but we have a regular discussion with afghanistan and it's certainly concerned about the presence of the safe havens. also a regular dialogue with the united states that have a trilateral dialogue. but most of it is actually focused on dealing with bilateral issues and how they mesh together. in regard to our own dialogue with pakistan, as you know, we have been a kind of dialogue with different teams and a different subjects but it's not become one of those issues not

because we are unwilling to speak. the question of how afghanistan was in the future to a large extent will depend on as i said the maintenance of the red lines of the international community. and if you read the conclusions both in istanbul and in tokyo last year, it's very clear that there has to be an end to the terrorist attacks on afghanistan that is not for restoring peace and stability. >> the secretary has a packed schedule for today as you can imagine and an important meeting at 11:00. please join me in thanking him for a wonderful presentation.

join us later today for more live programming on the c-span networks.

she was all of the wealthiest widows and the colonies and a drawing of the revolution while in her mid-40s, she was considered an enemy by the british who threatened to take her hostage. later she would become the nation's first lady at age 57. meet martha washington monday night in the first program of c-span's weekly series "of first laides." we will visit her life includin? colonial williamsburg, mount vernon, valley forge and philadelphia and be part of the conversation about martha washington with your phone calls, tweets and facebook posts life monday night at eight eastern on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. we've been talking about gun policy this week on washington journal. yesterday we visited a shooting

range outside of washington, d.c.. today a conversation with a gun control advocate. this is about 45 minutes. >> today on c-span's washington journal we focused on guns and the gun issue including travelling to virginia at the blue ridge arsenal gunshot and we heard from gun rights advocates. today we want to hear from one of the shooting victims from virginia tech in 2007. semidey vice president joe biden met during his hearings in advance of the white house announcement that came on gentry 16th with the president's proposals and recommendations on ways to curb gun violence in the country. the vice president also in attendance. here's a portion of what he said. >> during the meetings that we held, we met with a young man that is here today. i think colin is here today. he's one of the survivors of the virginia tech massacre. he was in the classroom. he calls himself one of the lucky seven. and he will tell you she was

shot four times on that day and he has three bullets still inside of him. when i asked collen what we should be doing today he said i'm not here because of what happened to me, i'm here because what happened to me keeps happening to other people and we have to do something about it. collen, we will. collen, i promise you, we will. >> host: the fais president last month, and we want to welcome collen to washington journal. thanks for being with us. >> guest: glad to be with you. >> host: a shooting victim now involved in the brady campaign. let's go back to april of 2007. what happened? >> guest: it was a monday morning, 9 a.m. french class, that first hour got to class, things were normal another girl in our class came late and this was one of the best students in

the class so when she took her seat we said what gives, class is have we done and she turned around and said there was a shooting in my dormitory this morning and the building was on lockdown. they wouldn't let anybody come or go and they finally said you are free to go so i came straight here. we looked at her like what? there's a shooting on campus and we haven't been told about this? earlier the school year, they cancel class is pretty quickly but we thought okay they let her go so things must be all right. five minutes after that we first heard this loud like bang bang bang coming from outside of our building. there were doing construction and we heard all sorts of moises and dropped it ought to the construction. things got much louder and closer and you could tell it was something in the building in the hallway. the teacher went to look and as soon as she opened the door she slammed it shut and turned to

everybody in this and underneath your desk somebody call 911. for the first time in my life i pulled out my phone and dialed 911 and i gave all my information of where i was and i wasn't sure what was going on. when we saw bullets coming through the door and at that point everyone hit the floor. was probably the longest ten minute experience of my life that followed. it felt like ours of just constant gunfire. it was soon after that that i didn't see much of what was going on all of a sudden i felt like someone had kicked me as hard as i've ever been kicked in my life above my left knee and that feeling kind of faded into this burning, stinging sensation that kind of went numb from head to toe. that moment when i felt that sensation and i smelled the propellant, it smelled like fireworks is kind of liken to a circle and realized i just got shot, this is real.

and like i said, the rest of the time is kind of a blur. i've is very conscious throughout the experience that i don't quite remember everything six years later. but i know at the end i'd been shot three more times, twice in my head and once in my shoulder and the last time i was shot was probably one of the last gunshots i heard and you could tell the police entered the building very close. actually my phone call was the only one made from one of the three rooms that had victim's. and when i left the phone go i landed next to a girl right next to me she picked it up and put it under her hair and kept them on the line and directed them to us. i expected him to engage the police but the first thing i heard them say is shooter down. the last shot that i heard was the one he gave to himself in the front of our classroom so it began the students trying to pull out the injured ones they could. and you heard this person is yellow, this person as read, then i heard black tag, black tag, and i realized some of my

classmates were dead. they told me of cannot reach an ambulance come to the hospital. the first one on campus was already full, so they drove me down the road and i spent six days in the hospital and a couple months of physical therapy. ultimately went back to virginia tech. >> host: what about your french teacher? >> guest: the french teacher was found behind the classroom door. she probably was one of the first once shot and the most difficult, most of my close friends in the class were sitting next to me so the seven people in the room other than the 17 that survived were all located where i was in the back corner of the room with my french teacher in the front of the classroom she was the first target. >> host: you then graduated. and a couple of years later you were watching on cnn another shooting that took place in upstate new york in bloomington. what did you see, and what was your reaction to that?

>> guest: it was april 3rd, 2009, almost two years after the shooting that i had been involved in. and i learned a great deal during that two-year time about how the situation i was involved in came to be. the school policies and the mental health policies and gun policies, how this person was allowed to buy a gun and despite having a record that prevented them from doing so they had a mental it to the occasion. i hadn't seen other shootings. i couldn't watch them up until that point but just how i kind of naturally turn on the tv that morning and saw the tv break i couldn't turn away. i sat there and i watched the news unfold throughout the course of the day and i thought this is how the whole world saw me and yet we change nothing. yet there was no policy on non-policy and mental health policy and i kept hearing that. what gives, and finally the was the end of that day, kind of my

tipping point i have to deliver i can to address the issue and help address the likelihood what happens to me happens to somebody else and i became involved in the campaign and have been involved ever since. >> host: the nra argues if we have armed guards and the school or if students have access to guns, that could prevent these types of mass shootings. your thoughts? >> guest: i've heard that a lot. i try to think back to that morning and realize that, you know, the only thing i really knew that morning is that i didn't know what was going on. and i just don't think that we should be taking our first step how to reduce these kind of shootings of the last possible second. we don't do background checks, i was frankly shocked. i assumed that we did. so there is far more we can do in advance to help stop someone with a dangerous mental illness from coming together in the

first place that we don't do currently. that we need to look at first. i don't think that america is going to shoot our way out of our shooting problem. we have to look at other preventative ways to get people that need help as well as keeping dangerous people away from the guns to begin with. >> host: a couple personal questions and then we will get to your calls and comments on the gun violence and the date that is front and center in the country. did you return to the classroom? >> guest: i did. there was difficult. in the classroom again and try to be normal and not freak out whenever a kid comes in late and it was tough from the beginning but ultimately after that last year i was somewhat more comfortable again. i will always kind of think of my exit 1a demint republic place i just kind of think that is a piece that is forever changed. but ultimately i graduated and got my degree. >> host: how did it change the

virginia tech campus? >> guest: i think it really brought the community together. i think a lot of people were not expecting people, students to transfer and not have a large incoming class. but i think the opposite actually happened. my sister who was going to go to a different school in virginia actually applied virginia tech and chose virginia tech has her school. she is there now. i know that there's a whole new kind of wave of students there now, they are not the ones that were there when i was there but people say did you know anybody and unfortunately it's been a bad mark on our school but i think there are so many good things that have come from that. that our school will be known for the let we leave after words and what we have chosen to do after the fact. >> host: a question on the twitter page. how are your injuries today? hopefully you have made a full recovery. >> guest: i have. and i think that goes a long way to help my mental and emotional

recovery. i can do everything i did before. i went skiing in jacksonville wyoming a few weeks ago. there are some friends who can't do those things. a week and the morning and see a different face in the mirror every day and they are kind of in a different place. i feel fortunate and lucky to have the recovery that i did that allowed me to ultimately get to the point i can become an advocate for some changes in this country and be able to share my story with people like you and the viewers. >> host: why do you think we have had a series of mass shootings, with its virginia tech, aurora colorado, newtown connecticut, why is this happening? >> guest: you could probably write a book on finding that answer. i don't think there is one reason that part of it deals with the easy accessibility of firearms. unfortunately there are too many people that leave their guns at cecil to their children with dangerous mental illness at home. to many sell their guns to strangers without background checks. those are two areas that makes common sense that we should

change and improve. that's why i wanted to work with the brady campaign and do this work and appear on conagra's. i think there's a lot of factors that coming you know, i think the one that separates us from the rest of the modern industrialized world is the availability and accessibility of firearms. >> host: i want to share with you and the audience these are the 2011 numbers, the most recent we were able to obtain from the alcohol tobacco and firearms. but this gives you the amount of firearms sold in any given year here in the u.s., pistols, 2.6 million, 2.3 million rifles, 862,000 shotguns, 573,000 revolvers come in and another 190,000 labeled as miscellaneous firearms. what do these numbers tell you? >> guest: we in america like to buy guns. i think it's been a part of our culture and tradition. i was an army rotc cadet and i passed the marksmanship i'd been

hunting with my buddies and that the range and will continue to do so probably for the rest of my life. but i think that there are some simple changes like manly during a background check on every gun sale will the long way to keeping the second amendment for the people that it was intended for and keeping guns out of the hands of people that in the first place. >> host: the other part of the date and this came up yesterday in the conversation she had to go through an extensive process of buying a gun in washington, d.c.. you can cross the potomac river relatively easy since you have different patchwork laws. maryland is different from virginia, new york and from upstate new york or vermont. you get the point you can travel across the borders and different laws in different states. >> guest: i think that plays a part in the problem of why a vast majority of guns used in the crimes and in new york city or chicago don't come from that area. they come from places it is easier to acquire and then

shipped and brought in through various means in the market. i think that's why we need federal standards might comes to background checks so you can't just go to the state 30 minutes on the road and avoid a background check completely. so, that's why i'm here in d.c. and in congress to bring about change those are the missing pieces they've been the american public engagement. we need people who are watching and concerned about this to share their views with elected officials to engage in the process. fundamentally they don't think that we care. that's why they haven't done anything. so we need to fundamentally change the paradigm. >> host: we are talking with colin goddard come class of 2008 and a shooting victim in the 2007 incident that took place in april. now involved in the brady campaign. we have a call from savannah georgia. good morning. >> caller: good morning. god bless the young man going on

with his life after such tragedy. but i'm just calling to say that i've got a driver's license and if i didn't stop in the state of south carolina, they didn't pull up my record, so no matter what they seem to think, they can do something like that with a gun rules. when people go different places, they can put their record on the computer. >> host: thank you for the call from georgia. >> guest: she brings up a great point. before you're allowed to drive a car in public in this country, you have to be licensed and register your automobile and you have to prove that you are certified and competent. unfortunately we don't do that with firearms at all. and i think to hear the comparison between the death caused by firearms and buy automobiles we've done a great deal of the reduction of death caused by automobiles. and unfortunately the deaths

caused by firearms we haven't done the same with federal policy and regulation as well as changing how the social and cultural norms around dealing with the truck driving and not wearing a seat belt with being responsible with firearms. as a great question. >> host: the other part of the debate, that correct checks. who gets to decide who is a dangerous person? >> guest: a dangerous person the federal government has i think nine or ten categories. you know, people with records, people with domestic violence, restraining orders, people who have been discharged from the military. when it comes to mental health, people that have been in front of the judge and the brain injury to themselves or others. you don't want to paint with a broad brush per say but there are categories and the fbi basically is the organization that is the background check. they're the ones the process the records and check them to police records to make sure you're not flying on the form to apply to buy a gun and those are the folks that either get the red light or the green light and

allow the council to proceed or block it. >> host: at evin on january 16th in which the president outlined his agenda items with regards to guns and gun violence here are double what points. number one as requiring background checks for all gun sales. also a new ban on what they describe as military-style assault weapons cause also limiting magazines to ten rounds and drug trafficking as well as improving drug tracing data. with all of this, what is likely to pass? >> guest: i think everything is on the same page. we try to talk about every single part of the president's proposals. and we realize there isn't just one thing we can do or one solution to gun violence that's going to save everyone's life but we need a comprehensive set of policies in place that legitimately take seriously keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have it and now initially we are hearing them in the senate having

hearings, so the process will continue and we will see what goes on but we think that we need to do everything that we can, not just one thing or another thing that we need to have a comprehensive approach on the problem. >> host: marc williams says since the virginia tech shootings universities have insisted in processes for their struggle to come staff and visitors. can you spell out what changes you saw from april, 2007 until september of 2007 through your final years as a senior at virginia tech? >> guest: i think school policies have been one area we have seen the most improvement. the shooting at virginia tech was a game changer for the colleges around the country when it comes to how they provide for physical security on campus. i think mainly for example they don't allow -- to put locks on the doors from the inside. the change the handlebar say you can't change them up. the of emergency alerts and require people to sign up for it so they can be aware of what is going on on the campus. they do run drills and they've

created threat assessment teams where the of members of the faculty teams and law enforcement and community mental health involving and identify a problem students and making sure they get the help they need. but we've done i think a good deal in terms of encouraging or school security. but we have really done nothing in terms of improving our firearm security and making sure guns aren't falling into the hands of people who shouldn't have them. >> host: raising in excess of a million dollars in january alone. one of his best fund-raising efforts ever seeing a record number of new memberships. does that surprise you? >> guest: no. i think when you have kind of high-profile events like this people are kind of drawn to both sides to read we've seen a similar significant donation increases come significant numbers of new members of the chapter starting up and it's been phenomenal the kind of outpouring of support that we have received it and still two months later we are trying to get pnac to people now.

when people see these events they don't want them to happen to them and they try to do something. what happened at sandy hook shuck people to the core when you see that happen to 20 young people and six teachers. so it was a typical plant. i think that sandy hook was the tipping point for a lot of people and because of that we are still having conversations about our gun policy two months later. >> host: people are tweeting to you have you ever considered running for public office? >> guest: i've been up here for three years and it's a crazy city. i am in this now for a specific policy to refine and this for background checks on gun sales. that makes the same sense. it's common sense. people think we already do it and they are shocked when they learn that we don't. i am here in d.c. right now without objective and when we achieve that, we will do something else. i'm not sure.

i would like to work in the state department and foreign service overseas but right in front of me it's big enough i'm not looking at the moment. i am on flucas. >> host: you have multiple bullet wounds and you still have some in your leggitt? >> guest: i have some in my body in pieces to fit as they hit my pelvis it shattered and it's kind of difficult to take all little pieces out of the doctors left them in and said of the ever cause you pain we will take them out in the future but fortunately there hasn't been much pain. i went skiing, i play volleyball, so happy to make a good fortune recovery and i think it's allowed me to engage in this work and be with you today. >> host: have you felt different since the shooting? >> guest: one of the questions is how have you changed? most of my high school friends think i'm the same as i was back then but one thing i've noticed remarkably his movies and films especially with violence. i kind of disconnect when i see

particularly with gun violence and i think how did the director or producer choose to portray the seen as just the bullet to the head at the person is of screaming and you never see them again, do they make an attempt to show the gruesome reality of what it's like when the bullet enters the body clocks and then the emotional parts of the movies, you know, kind of get me. i can feel that getting choked up. that's the one thing that i have noticed the biggest change. but physically i have a couple scar's but i'm pretty much the same guy that i was before. >> host: dan is on the call in idaho. good morning. >> caller: good morning. >> host: good morning. >> caller: how are you doing? i have a question for colin. first of all kinds sorry that you have to go through such a horrible thing. anyway, if you were there and you would have been alarmed at that time, what you have man up and tried to stop that guy from shooting anybody in that place

in that school? >> guest: i've got a lot about that to but i think it's kind of natural to go back and relive the situations in your head to revive that pretty much every which way i can imagine from the saving the day were getting killed. the kind of realize that i didn't understand what was going on. at the moment i had the clarity of the situation is when i was shot and my leg was broken into it but i don't think that even with my little bit of rotc training that i would have been effective. and like i said, i think we can do a lot better of getting guns out of these people's hands in advance than try to react to the last possible second giving the >> host: what was typically a routine day in april would you have even a thought about carrying a gun in the classroom? >> guest: note. college campuses are one of the safest places you can be in this country. people aged between 18 and 24

the glove on college campuses are one of the constituencies least likely to get hit by a wallet and if you live anywhere else on the campus coming your percentage goes much higher. i think that is due to the fact that you're not allowed to carry firearms. we are talking about mass shootings. we think we need to acknowledge the day-to-day incidences' with firearms, theft and displacement accidental shootings and confusion that can erupt from these kind of situations. we are not having in this the date and it's going to make the average day today, which life much more dangerous than it currently is. host can you talk about your french teacher that was killed in the shooting khan. what is her legacy to her husband? >> guest: he is an incredible man. he's taken the physical space of that wing of the whole and turned it into the center for peace, studies and gun violence prevention. talk about taking something - and turning it into something

positive. he works in the same space his wife was killed and he works to create conflict resolution. it's phenomenal what he has done and helped create. i really admire how he has been able to turn something so bad and put it towards something so good. >> host: if you are running on c-span radio we are having a conversation with colin goddard now with the brady center. he was one of the victims of the virginia tech shooting in april, 2007. we have a call from niagara falls new york independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning and god bless you. god bless you as well, mr. goddard. i am archbishop kevin mcdougal, and i have been aware -- people don't understand when you go into a place and i go into high schools and i see mothers saying

would you please pray to make my son up. i live in new york niagara falls and i stood there in emergency rooms. six people got shot at the same time and they wouldn't even let priests in to pray to the guns have got to be -- i don't care how you stop them that there has to be an end put to some of this because it's really gotten to the point where like the gentleman that called before, would you have man that? what about the guy in the theater? it was dark. if everybody had a gun, and -- the only man that wouldn't have gotten injured was him, he had a body armor on. >> host: thanks for the call. >> guest: i think unfortunately the call here has seen the tough reality of gun violence in this country. you know, you've been in those

hospital rooms, you've seen that emergency care that is provided and the plight of mothers and families that go through something like this. i think the more americans need to see what you see and if they did we would have a very different conversation going on right now. if people saw what i saw in my classroom and with the classroom since the team looked like i think the conversation would be different. we speak of losing loved ones and people that have passed on, these are people who faded quietly in the night. these people go out violently, bodies ripped apart. it's a very intense situation, and i think more people start -- need to do the work that you are doing and see the reality of the problem and come to realize the change that we need. >> host: the issue of background checks on the post, guns getting into the wrong hands, and pointing out this figure that from 1999 through 2011 an average of 3600 tons nationwide sold to people who didn't pastorale background check. that according to the fbi.

>> guest: it's a big problem. you know, we have a background check system that applies to some gun sales but not all from private individuals as was missing records like in the case of virginia tech. we need to make improvements in the system by making sure all of the missing records are in the system and we need to look at the state-by-state making sure they are sending their records over to the fbi system and then also, if we did that and made sure every record was in there but we don't acquire every one of those dhaka of checks what are we doing? we have to make sure every sale that comes through with a background check. so those are so common sense that where we need to come around on this and one of the things that should be done first and should be done years ago. >> host: you talk about the shooting in 2009. 20 kindergartners woke me up. was connecticut a game changer? >> guest: it was a tough year. we started with the shooting of

a high school in ohio and then we saw the mass shooting in the movie theater in aurora colorado and in wisconsin, and then i think sandy hook was the last big bank on the crescendo of gun violence that year. it was the tipping point for a lot of people. it's horrible and really upsets me why it takes something so bad to cause a conversation to start but i have to kind of put that aside and say here we are. let's do something with this. >> host: daytona beach florida. good morning, democrats line. >> caller: yes, good morning. the next time i see somebody say man of i'm going to respond by saying grow up. the problem is the gun, okay. i agree that people that hold the gun should be getting the background check. we've got 40% that don't have any type of background check. i worry about that. to many americans resolve issues

of gun violence. we have -- the are not all criminals. they are people that can't control their impulses, domestic violence perpetrators. we have a stand your ground law here in florida. stand your ground. kind of like a man not. colorado has one called make my day. talk about childish. it's turning into the wild west. people should even if they think they are front-end peaden if you even look at them. they used to stand your ground all to get it has to stop. and i worry about the children. how often do you read of what children that are accidentally injured or killed themselves or another with a gun left unattended. the conservative media and fox, they were outraged when a paper published the names and addresses of handgun holders to refine a grandmother. i would want to know the gun owners in my area before i allow my grandchild to visit it play in the home that might have a law-abiding that a responsible gun owner. thank you for taking my call.

>> guest: the caller brings up a lot of great points there. i think between the laws that we have in this country and the state-by-state basis and federally as well as the general culture around firearms it's very aggressive, and unfortunately -- it helps us, this idea that we are all americans, we all live together in the community. we are neighbors. you hear these incidences people say the only thing you can do is get a gun to protect yourself and your family that doesn't help promote this kind of sense of community and awareness together that your problems are my problems and if you have an issue i need to acknowledge that and help you in some way and doesn't just say i'm not going to worry about that. i don't think that is healthy for the country. that is splitting into many of us up and we need to be coming together to solve these problems because there is no one package that says it's going to work and when it does it is going to make

an impact but if we change the culture and the social norms begin sure we keep them out to begin with that we will see a great reduction. >> host: did your shooting affect their parents and how they view guns and gun violence? >> host: >> guest: my parents raised me oversees most of their life and worked in the international development. they've always told me to leave the world a better place than you found it and find something you are passionate about doing and this work with improving the gun policy to prevent gun violence i'm trying to do my little piece to leave the world in a better place than i found it so they've had a profound impact and i think it's allowed me to move forward on this portable affect and find a positive way to engage. host could you talk about hollywood and a couple pages on twitter and joe says we are on to something with regard to hollywood. are you taking aim at the movie

industry? >> guest: we definitely need to look at more how violence and films and movies and games and music is affecting the population to be especially younger people. i don't think that we should curve creativity or take things away but i think we need to understand that young people at a certain age shouldn't be exposed to the kind of content they are exposed to. parents who just don't monitor their child playing all sorts of games you need to put it in context. of the need to play call of duty , i think we glorify guns and being of a hero to really understand everyone wants to be that but in reality it's different and we need to realize even with but which of the tanker from a little child can end of the life of a grown man and we need to take that seriously. >> host: did you see the face of the shooter? >> guest: i did not. i took one glimpse at the front

of the classroom and salles boots, khaki pants, a white shirt and holsters over both shoulders. because of the way the person was walking in the classroom and looked like he was about to exit and my first thought is that was caught off someone was going to come shoot me. instead of locking out the door, he walked and turned around the desk and it's not to my thought it was and seconds later i was shot. >> host: why did he target your call? >> guest: that's a good question. i don't think we will never get a solid answer but i do know he had class's in there on tuesday and thursday and he was familiar with the building and the layout and was one of the few academic buildings on campus that had only three very few big entrances and exits so he was able to change those up from the inside before he began shooting and not only stop people from fleeing but stopped the police from entering. they had to find a maintenance store around back. >> host: because?

>> guest: because there were only three major exits and entrances to the building. very different than most academics or if there are multiple entry points to read this was a more controlled environment that i think he was familiar with and that is my opinion of like norris hall was targeted. >> host: the next call is from minnesota. republican lineup for colin goddard. good morning nancy. >> caller: yes con thank you dirty much for c-span. mr. goddard come you have such good visibility. i would like to run an idea by you being a school board member and certainly get shutters in nursing homes likely and hospitals shutters every time i see this indication of the door that says gun-free zone i don't know why it was only badly interpreted. this means you, not us. why has it always been interpreted from? i felt this morning i'm going to

get some signs can't take them around the school district under the zone that says this means you, not us. with the small town and our state to get their name san francisco something they're going to have the police department headquarters in an elementary school or something. i think that sounds great. if they want to do it that way. but i can think of administrators at each of the schools my children have been connected and other schools where a few people, very qualified people could be armed, not the whole classroom, not your whole classroom even at virginia tech. but we just to clarify this sign out there that says this is a gun-free zone, this means you, not us and let people have lived the way they want. what do you think of that?

>> host: as a former school board member did you debate these issues with some of the board members? >> guest: >> caller: if no, we never did. nobody ever thought of anything so horrible. but on ago by a little place come a little town but a bigger school district. i always thought this would be a calamity if they just -- nobody ever heard of that. if a terrorist attack this what unglue the nation. the other thing i would like to run by you is elementary school, junior high, high school, isn't that neat and tidy, frankly i think it's terrible. >> guest: thank you for sharing your stories and comments and we will get a response from the guest. >> guest: i think she brings up a good point. people are allowed to carry firearms everywhere in this country. i think that there are certain

sensitive places like schools or government buildings or churches that should be allowed to decide for themselves what the policy is. you know, i think it's good to see in the president's package that there is more money to have school resource officer trained security guards where it is needed. i think that makes sense. but like i said, we to do a better job that we are currently not doing. manly with a background checks to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people to begin with. frankly, that should be the first thing that we take care of because background checks don't present any law-abiding citizen in the way that it's designed for good, decent, cuban-americans to pass them every single time they take it and someone with a felony record and restraining order or dangerous medical illness needs to get that check to make sure those people and that information gets around. if we don't intervene at the point of sale it is difficult to make any progress and prevent that point. >> host: background checks have stopped the shooter.

>> guest: we take to background checks. one is from the store down the road and one is from the internet, and unfortunately though once he was committed against his will and the mental institution in front of the judge and was admitted to get it to be a danger to himself, that decision right there on the federal law on the purchasing firearms unfortunately that is the decision that came after that to get the of patient therapy instead of inpatient therapy was ultimately to the deciding factor of life virginia didn't send their record over to the nationalistic and a background check system and so something as simple as one agency transferring to another agency background check that had all the records and i think something so simple is improving the background check making sure the missing records are there and it could have gone a long way changing the defense. >> another part of the debate on the front page of the "virginia-pilot" those are of course cell walls that would be

imposed and get someone else that uses it violently as he points out the proposed for the stock purchases it might be symbolic more than enforceable and the supporters say that it's hard to track and even more difficult to prosecute. estimate it is difficult to track and prosecute but we need to understand we have no federal gun trafficking statute on the books. that doesn't exist and that is one of the pieces in the proposal that will help come to pass. but half of it is creating new walls that say films shouldn't be allowed to own firearms and forcing the law means making sure background check is done. like i said, there are other proposals that comprehensive, it's not just one thing or another. we have to look at every avenue that we can to see the great reduction that we need and the number of people shot and killed every year. >> host: richard from

massachusetts. good morning. >> caller: how are you doing today? hello? >> host: yes, good morning, richard. >> caller: i just had a couple of lines i figured i would run for quickly because you don't always hear it when there is a debate and if you can bear with me for one second. one of the things that doesn't seem to come out very often is all of these shootings have happened in gun-free zones and that there have been a great number of people whose lives have been saved because they had guns. you don't often hear that on the media. also, chicago, new york and boston that has the tightest laws in the country have the most violence and i guess i would finish off by pointing out that a brief summation of the few countries we've all heard of that passed strict gun control these and dianne feinstein said she wants to remove all guns from the american people except for the police and the military. the country that have done that

in the past are germany under adolf hitler, russia under joseph stalin and china which led to some of the biggest amounts of mass murder in the entire 20th century so we should keep in mind the other stuff during the debate that the initial reason we had the right to bear arms was to prevent tyranny and government just to make sure that isn't lost among the emotional issue. >> host: thanks for the call. >> guest: i think she certainly the shooting wasn't a gun-free zone and in las vegas yesterday it wasn't. it doesn't only happen in gun-free zones, it happens frankly everywhere. unfortunately, the conversation that we are talking about, background checks for example, making sure those are done on

everybody is extrapolated to this degree that ultimately this will somehow result in people getting their door open and having someone take their guns which is in the conversation at all it's not what any of these bills or this legislation would do. it's frankly unconstitutional to do that. we have the decision that you cannot ban guns and i think that is a great decision for us because it removes the kind of extreme end point of everyone taking everyone's guns away. that isn't going to happen so let's talk about what we can do what they said, background checks and gun sales. >> host: the vice president in a parents magazine facebook town hall meeting said his advice is to buy a shotgun. >> guest: she speaks in a ferry and and candid manner. shows that the vice president isn't opposed to people owning firearms. he understands that. there is a legal wall that

exists for the country and most of them have actually told us that we support in the background check supports as well we've seen the polling that shows seven out of ten members support the gun sales and eight out of ten or nine out of ten americans, you know, so these are the middle ground we are gaining the consensus on and we will move forward and get progress in this country to it was talking about a semi-automatic weapons taking a look at guns in america and pointing out this figure that when it comes to overall u.s. deaths among the semi-automatic rifle the contributor back in 2011 the fbi report in 323 murders committed with a rifle compared to 6,000 to hundred 20 committed with handguns in the u.s.. >> guest: they speak for themselves. weapons like that have been used

and more crimes. i think we should look at the types of weapons we make for the military use and sold to the public. i was shocked to see some of the guns i was able to buy, guns i thought had no place in our streets but we are built for war zones and i think we go a long way not to stop shootings but to stop the feel of saudi of it. when i learned there was a 100 around drum used in aurora colorado i was blown away. that's a military weapon. there is no reason that belongs in the country and used in civilian hands have to get to be able to strewed 100 rounds without stopping has no common purpose for self-defense or hunting or sport shooting. you have a gun and accessory belt to kill as many human beings as possible. i fink we need to take a hard look at what kind of guns we saw the general public. >> host: the final, as you are in route to the hospital that

morning in 2007 and then recovering for several months later. what was going through your mind? >> guest: just trying to graduate come to find a sense of normalcy. everything gets turned upside down and as much as you want to focus on the negative, you have to find a way to be a positive and real lives things won't ever be quite the same as they work. but with some work and hard times you will find a way to find a sense of security again and purpose and now it's been a way for me to continue therapy talking about this issue getting it off my chest as well as taking this experience and channeling it towards something good. it wasn't just what happened to me that got me involved. i kept seeing it happen to other people. i'm here in washington, d.c. to

ask people helped me get this done so we can see some substantive change in this country and see a great reduction and a number of people killed each year. >> host: in your classroom how many students were in the class, how many short shot and how many were killed? >> guest: there were 17 people and putting my teacher and i'm one of seven people that are alive. there were 42 people killed that morning. the other 19 or so injured from gunfire and then another three or four injured from jumping out of the second story window and breaking their ankle or their leg on the way down. and then there were many, many more what i consider emotionally who witnessed everything that physically remain unscathed and changed the community but i think for anyone who deals with hardship in their life for something comes out of left field you don't have to be remembered for those events you had no control over. what's a better definition of your character is how you choose to take yourself back up and

move forward and do from those days forward. that reflects better on who you are as a person and like i said when you find a way to put it towards something positive is a believe the world and a better place than you found it. >> host: colin goddard, thanks for being with us. we appreciate it.

several among the group suggested the proposed gun control laws are misguided. there is no evidence that work to read the entire event is available in the c-span video library. here is a peak. >> i remember going with my uncle hunting chasing those pigs and rabbits and ducks. i remember my father taking me to the gun range to learn a proper understanding of guns and responsible leadership. but i also learned i did have the right to bear arms for the protection of my family. i was not home that night.

but i heard the 45 gunshots. rat-tat-tat come rat-tat-tat triet i learned i need the first line of defense in my house, not just the police and certainly not this government. the word of god in my humble opinion and of which i stand is good enough for me especially when i read those who built on wall and those who carry burdens loaded themselves so with one hand they worked as construction and with the ever hand they held a weapon. every one of the builders had a sword at his side. thank you as we begin to rebuild the freedom of the country.

i've learned how to say enough. i've learned how to say i will not be moved. i've learned how to say no new rules until you learn to enforce the ones we already have. in the name of jesus. [applause] >> two points, number one, the call for universal background checks qualify for constitutional rights invokes painful memories of jim crow laws and black coats come a substantial body of research already shows gun-control and powers criminals and weakens the law abiding citizens. regarding black realities, blacks are the least our income and least protected and defended and most of salted citizen in our country. according to a recent que research study only 16% of

blacks say they have a pistol or rifle at home. can anyone whom god has blessed with a brain actually think universal background checks in which a legal infraction might mollify gun application will not result in even fewer law-abiding black men from obtaining a weapon to protect their family? what about black women? according to research in the british journal psychiatry by the doctor, a professor of human studies by bowling green state university, the men that analysis studies show an 81% higher risk of mental health problems with women that have had an abortion. while abortion be one of the questions on the universal background check applications? number two, the call for banning specific guns as senator feinstein has proposed is also problematic as it cuts too much power in the hands of politicians and the law enforcement establishment that cannot always be trusted.

>> at age 25 she was one of the wealthiest widows in the colonies and during the revolution while in her forties she was considered an enemy by the british who threatened to take her hostage. leader should become the nation's first first lady at age 57. meet martha washington monday night in the first program of c-span's new weekly series "first ladies" influence and damage. we will visit some of the places that influenced her life including colonial williamsburg, mount vernon, valley forge and philadelphia. and be part of the conversation about martha washington with your phone calls, tweets and facebook posts. live monday night at eight eastern on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. in january, northwestern university professor david talked about school choice at the university of florida law school to the peace been an education policy adviser to several u.s. states and foreign

countries. the bob graham center for public service posted this hour-long even to. >> thank you. the center for public service is pleased to co-sponsor this is as we do programs on policy issues throughout the years of this is a great policy for us to look at. david siglio is a professor of education and policy at economics and a director of the institute for policy research at northwestern university and also a research associate at the national bureau of economic research and a fundamental right of the seattle co research program on the economics foundation. his research and social policy has been funded by the nsf, the department of education, the gates foundation among many others. david's currently funded research involves evaluating the floor of the corporate tax

credit scholarship program, the largest school voucher program in the united states conducting a large-scale study of the school accountability in florida and following children from birth early childhood quality. prior to joining a northwestern faculty in 2008, david taught at the university of florida where he was a professor of economics from 1998 to 2008 and the university of oregon from 1995 to 1998. he earned his ph.d. in economics from the university of wisconsin madison in 1995. so, help me welcome david, please. [applause] >> welcome thank you for coming out tonight. it is a pleasure to be here at the university of florida. as mentioned, i spent years on

the faculty and i'm still always thinking about reasons to come back here. it's fabulous to look out at the audience tonight and see not only colleagues from the university so it's wonderful to be back here for this event. so, i was urged we will start on time and end on time so let me tell you briefly what i'm going to try to do over the next 55 minutes or so so that there is time for q&a towards the end. i'd like to sort out just by letting a little bit of the groundwork for the trend in american education policy over the last several decades.

i want to then give you a little bit of an understanding of some of the reasons why people have been proponents of the policy changes. i will talk about some of the reasons why these policy changes they work the way people are hoping and why they may not work away in which people are hoping they would and then move into the discussion of some of the evidence today regarding whether or not these policies have been having the desired outcome and what might have been some of the other outcomes people might not have thought through what was going on so that is what i will wind up doing today. so, i know that this audience has a wide range of knowledge about the state of american education policy today. one of the things i think is pretty remarkable is that actually if there were a group of us who were talking prior to

this and one question that was asked of me is there any difference between what the democrats and the republicans even think about education reform, and i can see why some people might wonder about that if we think about the race to the top program was put in place of the president is doing, ana involves an increase emphasis on testing of students, teacher evaluation to the tests, and suggests although it isn't dictated but suggesting that there should be some reward dissensions made out to the teachers on the basis of this testing. in some regards one might ask okay that was coming from a democratic president. how different is that from what preceded president obama under

george w. bush, and the answer is george w. bush never could have done that because he was a republican and so in some regards it requires a democratic president to actually push forward some of the agenda many associated with republicans might have done so i can see why people might be thinking what's the difference anymore between the various education policy agendas of different people. so, as to think about how different the landscape today is an education policy versus what it was on the decade or two ago. if you think about american education before 1980 or 1990, we saw the overwhelming majority, 97% of the population attending neighborhood public

schools were schools that were among the people in public schools that this attending neighborhood public schools that were associated with a given residential location. a very small number of trees programs that were almost invariably within the public school system, so we've had schools with increasing popularity ever since the 70's but these magnet schools tended to be relatively small as part of the general charles infrastructure. a different school systems will offer some opportunities for people to select another public school but that was very rarely executed and people had to jump through hoops to exercise that option if it existed at all. let's compare that to today. so, today nearly every state in

the union has the charter school laws for those of you that don't know, they are schools that i would call them clause i public, there publicly funded schools that are free from some of the rules and regulations that public schools are typical traditional public schools are subject to, charter schools are varied from state to state and how they come to be in some cases school districts themselves get to determine what schools exist and which ones don't and other states almost anybody that wants to found a charter and can find and organizing more accrediting body can start one. something that is common among the charter schools across the united states for example is these are schools that are

operating within the public system that is usually subject to some nature this and accountability standards that public traditional public school systems are subject to but on the other hand, they also are more able for example to set alternative collection criteria for who gets to go to those schools under what circumstances they can choose different curriculum and impose standards on parents requiring that parents participate in certain ways within the school. ..

even a decade ago, babylon three decades ago. another thing we observed occurring throughout the country right now is the introduction of public funding for private schools through people often call than school vouchers. some people prefer not to club and school vouchers and call them scholarships. but we can use -- i'm going to call them vouchers tonight. and so, the notion behind us in florida has been an industry leader in that regard, has been that people can take their public funding, at least to some

degree and take it to a private school. and then of course, the public schools no longer have funding for the individual student. florida has two of the oldest and most established school voucher systems in the united states and right now to have the largest. one school voucher system in the united states is the mckay scholarship program. and so, students who have certain sets of exception nowadays, a specific learning disability, ought to sound, significant physical limitations and a wide variety of others. if they are family states they are dissatisfied with the level of education that is provided within the traditional public-sector, can take the amount the state of florida would have spending on non-comic given to the public sector and

said take it to a private school to provide educational services. the other major school voucher program in florida right now was one called the corporate tax credit scholarship program, now called the florida tax credit scholarship program and that is aimed at students who are of limited family income. so in order to qualify for the florida tax credit scholarship program, you have to have a family income less than 185% of the poverty line. that is the same level of income that you need to qualify for free or reduced price lunch in the public school. to give you a sense estimate that is, it's about $40,000 for a family of four. so these are working class, lower middle income families, for example, who are qualifying for this program. this program right now limits

the number of scholarships are vouchers to a certain number students, so it is first come first serve into the program, but then people can take these vouchers to be used in any private school of their choosing someone is a private school needs a few criteria such as that it has been accredited, been around a couple years and is financially solvent. so there are relatively small levels of restrictions of what it can be. a student can go to either public, religious or nonreligious private schools and either one of these programs. in fact, because florida tax credit scholarship program is limited in size, unlike the mckay scholarship program for disabled students is limited for most of its history between about $354,500 slowly creeping

up. i don't know what the number is right now for this year. i'm going to guess about 4800 to $5000. as we know, nonreligious private schools often past two, three, four, five times that amount. as a consequence, close to 80% of students on the program are attending religious private school. so florida is not alone in that regard, although first off the mark. florida style program has been implemented in a number of different states from indiana to louisiana to pennsylvania, for example. some are things that come east and west such that "the wall street journal" called 2011 and a year of school choice in 2012 had even more school choice programs being implemented around the country than 2011.

so at this point, we observed a genetically altered landscape. so that is kind of a preamble to the tapes a world in which we live right now. so you may want to ask yourself, why are we doing this? why might we have moved from a choice environment, where students had very little -- families had very little choice. the choice was essentially limited to the residential location for all intents and purposes to a system which many states, many families have the opportunity to attend private school, using public money. those who aren't going to private schools come in many go to charter schools, quasi public schools, even within public schools, it was in the traditional public school sector, you are seeing dramatically increased rate of what we call open enrollment

policies. policies that allow people who live in one part of town to go to school in another part of town. why is that going on? moreover, i would like to link those same policies together with another change in policy that has been happening in the united states over the last 20 years, which is the so-called school accountability movement. the school accountability movement, everyone is aware of the school grades, but for people watching who aren't in florida, nearly every state has some way of evaluating schools based on student test scores in which schools are ranked. in the case of florida, schools are rated on the basis of a few different criteria. they are ranked based on the fraction of students who were deemed proficient under the sub

seven for determining student proficiency. they are also evaluated on student gains from one to the next on this test scores and they are evaluated on a few other things, for example, high schools are evaluated according to things such as graduation rates in the lake. largely around the country and here in florida, schools are evaluated primarily on either fraction of kids to meet some performance threshold for the gains from one year to the next or in the case of florida, a combination of the two. so why do we have these things? school choice in school accountability to gather and something i will call market-based reform because for better or worse, you heard i am an economist. a lot of the impetus behind both

of these school reforms have really been driven, many reformers have been motivated by some of the heretical work that came out of economics over the last two decades. and so if you have people think about what were some of the arguments as a way for us to help move into critically assessing his arguments. so, why might we want to have increased school choice? well, a common myths like to think about evaluating various states in the world of policies according to two different criteria, equity and efficiency. i think it is useful to start talking about efficiency questions. i promise i'm not going to spend much time in jargon, so bear with me. equity and efficiency is as much chart an update tonight.

so let me define efficiency for a moment. often when people think about the road efficiency, they think how many widgets can reproduce using certain types of technology, right? i want to use a more extensive definition of efficiency and that is often what economists like to think about. let's think of efficiency for the sake of our discussion tonight as are the schools, think about equality dimension from better means more efficient, worsening fast efficient. so we can to find better anyway we want and that is okay for the point of view of this discussion. keep in mind whatever you think means a better school, that means more efficient. so what did the notion of efficiency, there are two different types. this is the last jargon. productive efficiency and allocative efficiency.

there's no test. all right. in the case of project of efficiency, when we talk about a school be more productively efficient, what that means in english is the school is doing a better job based on whatever your inking good means, using available resources. when we think about allocative efficiency, what that really means is more about the idea that individual students are well matched to different schooling environments. so why might school choice, it can go in and spending and describing the rationale for mental talk about the other side. so now, why might school choice be to increase productive efficiency? well, what are the last, and

this is an argument popular amongst free-market economists like milton friedman, for example, is to say okay, if the school faces no competition, if a school notice they are going to get the same amount of money from the government regardless of whether they do a good job or a bad job, if families don't have an out or have an easy out from the school, they may be less likely to try to innovate and do a good job. now of course that is a very pessimistic view of the world. you're basically suggesting educators are only interested in revenue maximization and not interested in educating, per se. but you can tweet that however you want. the notion would be supposed educators care about two things.

they care about make him a job as easy as possible and they care about educating kids as well as possible. arguably the part they care about making their job as easy as possible could be stronger. that may win out more in cases in which they don't have to compete for students. so proponents of school choice may say, intermec educators compete for students, that educators will try harder to do a better job educating students. so that is one argument of the productive efficiency story. the allocative efficiency story may be that maybe educators are competing for students per site, but every student learns better in a different environment. so if we provide families with more choice, maybe families might select a wide range of

schooling options. so some schools were some kids in different schools for their kids. and if we provide the industry says, maybe it is not the schooling will get better per se, that kids will be better matched to different schooling environments. now when we think about equity for a moment, people argue the equity movement for school choice is the notion that in some regard, and many of us in this room have always had school choice. that is we can choose where to live. for example, at 20, 30, 40 years ago if your neighbor choose your school, if you weren't happy with the school, you could move to another place. so relatively affluent families had the opportunity. but relatively poor, if we did like the public schools, their private school options they

could pay for. we had all sorts of opportunities. maybe poor family is for students of color who may be wearing neighborhood that had been redlined over the years such that they couldn't live in certain neighborhoods, maybe those families had fewer choices. if you are poor, maybe you couldn't afford a private school. maybe there were neighborhoods you couldn't buy into, for example. so the equity argument was a major one. if we look back -- if we look back to where many of the bedfellows at the dawn of the school choice movement, you know, the modern school choice movement in the early 80s and 90s, it was free-market conservatives and often advocates for low income and minority groups. for example, the urban league of florida has been a long-standing

supporter of increased school choice options in florida. it was often because what you had were allies focused more on the efficiency side becoming allies of people focused more on the equity side. so those are some of the arguments in favor of school choice, increased school choice option. now it is important to take a step back and think about why some of these things might not work so well, might not work as well as we might think. so i think that i am very much a moderate politically when it comes to these types of things. i think that my view is very very few silver bullets that are out there is any silver bullets in education. and why might they be very few several bullets out there? one possible reason behind this is if we think about the underlying economic model behind

this, you know, often people who are free markets -- free-market education advocates will say things like the reason we want vouchers is that the private school market is already disciplined by the power of the market. so private schools don't need accountability because private schools live or die based on quality. that assumes some very big assumptions, right? so let's think about what the assumptions are that would make that true. one thing that would make that true would be their information. if they knew exactly what went on to very clearly identify what was better at what was worse for my child, that could possibly

hope to move us in that direction. i don't think there's anybody in this world like that. the underlying argument assumes another argument, another underlying assumption is that schools can just open and close like factories. and we know that's not true either. there was no place for somebody has some great idea, open a school and they can immediately produce and that's everything. there's all different hoops people have to go through, even in the private market. so then, as soon as we moved on more away from that, we start to wonder if little bit, his parents have an idea, but they don't really know necessarily which school might be better for

their kids, then the more you move away from this notion that parents have a really good idea, the more you have to wonder about are we going to see the games allocate efficiency that are going on? likewise, the more people might be moving on noise as a perv to reality -- changing schools, for example, the more we wonder whether schools face much of an incentive to compete for students. if you're an educator and you know parents who basically randomly decide whether or not to read, no matter what you do, even if you bought into this notion that if i work harder or differently that might make my school better, why would you necessarily be safe to that if somebody was just flipping a coin to decide whether to stay or go. i've been overly dramatic on the other side.

the point of the matter is that there are these strong assumptions people sometimes forget when they talk about market-based solutions to education problems. let's think of a school accountability for a moment. and things like school accountability come to hear the primary arguments behind the school accountability movement inside byatt, one more bit of jargon. there's no test on that either, but feel free to write it down. the principle problem works as follows. suppose that we in society are interesting educators to act on our behalf, but of course educators know more about what's really going on inside the classroom, inside the schools and other members of society. also, the argument then would be potentially educators might not do as good of a job or might

prioritize things that we as a society don't care as much about because they're not been as closely monitored. so the theory would go we monitor educators more, that will induce them to do the things we want them to do. well, this is a good way of segueing a little bit into the part of talk in which i talk about evidence. so here is one piece of evidence that's unimpeachable. is true in florida and it's been true throughout the country and everywhere in the world, where things take school accountability has been instances. educators are really good doing the things that they get measured on. it's not just educators, right? it's all of us. if you were told in your job via two different types of things you have to do in your paycheck is going to be determined entirely on one type and not at

all on the other type, you're probably going to focus more of your energy on that. so there's nothing special about educators. it is just educators on the topic of tonight's conversation. so far up on time at the turlington building, there was a sign that said what gets measured gets done. and that could be viewed as everything good or everything bad about the school accountability movement. a lot of good for a lot of bad. let's think about the battery since i started talking about good status. so suppose we as a society care about two things. let's imagine those two things just for simplicity or ability for kids to do algebra quickly and ability to think critically

in a more inquiry-based measure. so supposedly we have a test really good at measuring capability to do algebra quickly, but not at all good at those tapes that deep inquiry skills. well, the downside of wicked measured gets done with the educators might focus more attention on teaching things on the test. those quick algebra skills to the detriment because there's so many hours in the day, to the detriment of other schools we might really care about. the plus side of let's get measured is supposed in from a test are things that really represent the skills we value in society. due to the degree that is true you can have a positive side. there's been hundreds of studies that show that happen.

but now there's other things that educators have done that you may wonder if little bit more about us to whether this is a positive or negative thing about school accountability. the reasonable people can disagree about whether teaching to tests, which in many circles has a very pejorative connotation. i think reasonable people to say teaching the test is good and others might see teaching the test is terrible. and both could be true for different reasons. but there's other things that people do that could be less positively inclined. so i mentioned to a dimpled or research i've done in different places. one of florida, one in virginia. some of florida, at the dawn of school accountability, i noticed one thing i discovered was of course you got tested, the kids

in school and testing days. that made me wonder whether or not schools might be interested perhaps in influencing who was there on testing days. so i looked at high achieving kids of low achieving kids and i found out after the test became high stakes, the schools really throwing the book at those low achieving kids if it happened to be they would be suspended over the testing. period the high achieving kids could do almost anything and they were going to go to class the next day. now it's happening much more during the testing period than any other time of the year, dramatically more. and so, it's hard to tell a positive educational story for that, right? i thought for years about it and i have a hard time imagining a positive story for that.

in virginia -- so i talked about florida being an industry leader in terms of school choice programs. virginia was an industry leader in testing. anybody in florida who thinks florida kids are tested a lot, look to virginia because virginia has been tested in more subjects for longer periods a lot of the testing takes place in the afternoon, so that made me wonder, maybe schools might want to try to treat kids lunches like carbonless before a race than it turns they did to a huge degree. i'm not talking about the obesity epidemic. it's not that virginia's testing. i've seen headlines that testing is bad. it has nothing to do with testing. but what is one of the things that we saw?

you could look at the test administered in the afternoon versus in the morning of what we saw were kids are doing better in the test administered in the afternoon when schools went and had the opportunity to directly influence their minds. by the way, if you're interested in knowing what works for short-term brain boost for whatever reason, give yourself a dose of glucose. for example, class of apple juice or something like that. but you don't want very much that because it slows the absorption of glucose into the bloodstream. so what you don't want is a brownie, like snapple's cookies or something, something low-fat but high carb. remember when that was good? called snack wells at that point. that type of thing really helps. schools were doing notley crazy.

they were doing the meal equivalent of that. what does that mean, right? a lot of people misinterpret those kinds of findings. the one important things to take away is that it's possible to manipulate test scores. if schools can boost kids test score pass rates by four, five, 6% at a cinema sugar before a test, that suggests an aim about how much we should pay attention. so let's think now about one of the things we can learn about the design of a school accountability system. i will talk recently about school choice and then leave this open for 10, 15 minutes per question. so one thing we can take away from this is how do we want to try to maximize positive educational benefits and minimize the chances that

schools are going to be, you know, suspending miss behave means low achieving kids for 10 days to keep them from taking a test or to carp about the kids lunches in order to give them an artificial brain boost. one thing we can do is to afford a date in 2002. that is change the rules of the game so that schools are now judged not just on fraction of kids who get over a line, but the fraction of kids improving year-to-year. that's a bit of a simplification, but i can expand on that if you like. said nothing about this. if you are rewarded or sanctioned on the kids who improve, suppose you want to carb overload kids lunches. now you are artificially boosting kid scores this year, so next year you have to do more in the year after that even more. it's like our kids get caught in

a lie. you get caught in a lie and you have to have even more to get out of the five. so ultimately, what happened in florida decided to then they'll study here, but i did the discipline story. as soon as florida changed its rules, the discipline by the way. here's something that's interesting about florida, though. florida is one of only a handful of states that has rules that make it less attractive to engage in that type of behavior. so say what you want about school accountability in florida, whether it's a positive for negative and i think there are both positives and negatives associated with it. the florida has the positives and fewer negatives than louisiana, california, massachusetts. most other states in the country, and because of those types of rule changes that have

been taken place in 2002 or 2007, for example. with regard to school choice, what's the answer? we are still learning a lot about school choice. but i will mention school choice seems very strongly is nowhere close to the silver bullet that advocates were hoping for. likewise, i also think it's nowhere close to the problem opponents are fearing. i've been a lot of research on the florida tax credit scholarship program. that is a voucher program providing scholarships to good private schools for a relatively low income kid, kids under 185% of the poverty line. so what if we learned about this? the first thing is to advocates who used this? they're not just any low-income kid. they tend to be the kids

performing the worse in their traditional public school. so it looks like that's a little bit of an argument in favor of mismatch, that maybe some kids are doing very poorly and parents are trying to find some alternative option for them. whether or not they are succeeding is an open question. the second thing we've learned in florida is that kids participating in the voucher program are do they know better, no worse on average than the kid that would've done as they sit in the public schools to the extent we are able to tell. they're strictly statistics about generic, more tricky than i'd really like. but my professional judgment says they are doing no better, no worse than they would've done in the public school. so people can interpret that positively negatively. people who interpreted negatively say if they're not doing any better, why are we taking money from public schools

to get them to private schools for kids are doing any better? the positive side is maybe they are doing better in a less easy measure type of thing. and of course we can't measure it because if we could have been measuring it. i do know families are happy with the choices, but that is something we know also. everyone is always happy with their choices. it's not just schooling. if everything else. u.s., are you happy with that car you paid $30,000 for? even if you kind of think it, i love that car. and so on. so if that's something that could be viewed either positively or negatively? the third inning, and this is something i view as a positive and it kind of surprised me a little bit is that it does turn out public schools seem to be doing a little better as a direct consequence of having this competition from the

private schools. a little bit is the operative word because this has been misinterpreted, too. some people say public schools are doing better, therefore it's a definite slam dunk. it's positive, consistent, but modest. so what does it mean? it means may be on the margin, especially certain types of schools seem to be improving a bit as a consequence, at least along a certain set of observable vibes. so where i come down on the florida tax credit scholarship program? as it currently stands, a relatively small programs is not that florida is blowing up the public schools to do this, my view where i come down on this is moderately favorable. there are some issues, but there's also positive benefits. for one other thing that we see here is that the range of outstanding private schools

participating program are not about private schools, what about really horrible private schools participated in the program as well. what we really need and what i think is an import thinks he has been inside think that any school, whether traditional public school, charter school, private school, if you accept public money, there should be some hype level of accountability or equal type of accountability. so i think what we still see in florida and in other states is a little bit of a double standard. but public schools need rules and measurement, but private schools don't need as much because they are disciplined by the market. i don't think that's really true because if they were, how can you explain truly desperately terrible private schools that exist. on average that means for every truly desperately terribly private school, they must be a

truly amazingly good private school, to where the average wouldn't be the same with the public school. but we need to do is try our hardest to get rid of some of those others. so whatever we can do, if we are going to a publicly funded private schools, we need to get rid of this solution is somehow private schools are disciplined by the market. so i hope i'm leaving you with a little bit of confusion because ultimately, i think there are no easy answers. if somebody were to tell me, what would you do as an education summer, i would hate to have that job because i think there's few easy answers. so i will leave you with one thought in the last questions. so the one thought is, you know, we should think a little bit about how the education reform that's been going on and ask

ourselves, is this really hoping our kids do better? ending, there's some evidence that says it is hoping along the lines of test scores. literacy skills, algebra, that type of thing going on. but we have to think about what is special about american education? there certain things about american education that are hard to measure. i'm part of the higher education sector, but it is true that american higher education is the best in the world and american k-12 system has actually done a pretty good job over the years, including large fractions of our population to be successful in the higher education systems in the world. that is before accountability, before school choice and that kind of thing. so as we think about these policies, we need to think about

not only things that are easy to measure, but also things that are intangible because we could end up cutting off our nose to spite our face. thank you. [applause] >> we have a few question. only a few loaded funds. first one is a great question. how can we get a good teacher and incentive to teach it at low performing school? >> how can they give a good teacher and incentive to teach at a low performing school? well, i think that there were a few different types of things we can do. one thing, of course, would be

conversation. so if there are schools that we have a difficult time finding excellent teachers to teach, i am a believer in certain markets. when i believed then as the labor market. so if were having difficulty at certain schools, could be low performing schools, schools and a certain neighborhood, whatever. i am supported at this notion of differentiated pay for people to teach in schools where it's hard to get teachers to teach. so i don't see any other reason. i think any other way to do that because in some regards, the other choice besides compensation is to force people against their will to do things they don't really want to do. some school systems do that, right? other school systems do that only for ricky teachers and once you become experienced in your

status, you can say now i want to go to that school or something like that. so really we have two choices. we can either force people to do things they don't want to do or we can make them want to do it and i am in favor of giving people reasons to do things as opposed to demanding they do things they don't want to do, except when it comes to my kids. >> okay, now this one requires you to be a lawyer. opportunity scholarships in florida were declared unconstitutional and those who scholarships given to children who were in low performing failing schools. now, what is different about the corporate tax scholarship and the mckay scholarship that makes them constitutional?

>> i'm an economist. i am not going to touch that one. >> okay, but that's a question our committee is asking them were hoping to get some legal opinions on that. the argument we have heard is that the corporate tax rebates or charitable contributions. now, we will see how that plays out. here's another one. you mentioned you were going to meet with tony bennett tomorrow. he is the new commissioner of education. he is a supporter of school choice. however, he believes it should not stand as is and that whatever school receives the money should still be held accountable like public schools. how do you think this will change school choice in florida? >> well, i guess i've are they gone on record as saying i think

that schools that are receiving public money should receive similar types of accountability. so i think that commissioner bennett is definitely speaking my language when it comes to that because we do see that there are -- i mean, i kind of the various eight bit is a fairness issue. if we are going to be saying we want you public schools took him deep but private schools, then first of all pairings should have a certain type of information so they can judge for themselves, at least among some different mensheviks but the differences are between them. so now the big question becomes, how will it change? one possibility could be private schools send up having to take

the fcat paired right of private schools do not have to take the fcat. if you are participate in the florida scholarship program is a private school, you are required to administer a nationally normal reference of your choice. for those of you who are veterans of public schools, up until a few years ago with the fcat and rt, we don't offer that anymore. but it doesn't have to be. it could be the iowa test of basic skills. some of the tennis -- it's a question now, so i have to go to into jargon again. some are more summative tests evaluating a set of skills that authority been attained, and the iraq test of basic skills is more affirmative. that is they are intending to be telling teachers more about where to focus.

the iowa test is administered in the fall. private schools are able to choose amongst these things. it's hard to make apples to apples comparison. i've been forced to try my hardest to make those comparisons, but it's very difficult. and it's not in uniform. so i would encourage this. now i will say that commissioner bennett ideas are not too dissimilar to what many people in the florida department of education and in the scholarship funding organizations step of her students that minister the florida tax scholarship has been pushing. so i know the department of education has for years and thinking exactly in this direction. the scholarship fund an organization has well. my hope is there could be the rule of law behind it that because many of the key players

in private school choice in florida actually want to see that which i would like to see as well. but we have to have the laws to back it. >> one more question. does more choice lower the quality of the non-choice schools because of decreased funding due to the lower student population? >> well, that's really hard. there are three different ways in which school choice can affect the non-choice schools. i talked about two of them uppity little bit. one is the competition. so i've told you the available evidence suggests that providing school choice leads to small but positive degree of competition. so that way, school choice is helping. the second involves composition. who are the kids there? school choice can go either way,

right? it all depends. some school choice programs might stimulate the best and the brightest kid and often families make a difference, especially in schools serving relatively disadvantaged populations with last filly participation can be potentially devastating to a school. suppose school choice is leading some of the most kids for kids performing poorly to live at school appear that might actually end up helping to improve the school. so who stays, who goes convert both ways and that's where you really have to think carefully about the nature of the school choice program. to them in each the revenue, the resources. so the resources site is a mixed bag as well. so definitely at the level of the school system itself, as school systems are losing

resources, we have to think about the resources i is okay more bit of jargon, the marginal versus the average. okay, so what happens is school systems or compensate by the state of florida, for example, based on some measure of average that. you can't just hire 19 twentieths of a teacher. you have to hire all of the teacher, which means that schools if they lose the average cause, it may be the marginal cost of the last kid, but only pennies now as many thousand. also tied up by a lot and you can get into a real potential problem. at the individual school level, it is less clear what might be the case. in fact, it could even be a case of individual schools might do better because of losing case. for example, alachua county

public schools, suppose there is a given school at that bauhaus class size is 16 as opposed to 90 meters three kids from every class of months ago. they're probably not going to go to class sizes are 32. or maybe they will. and now a north shore illinois school, maybe they would in florida. not sure. do whatever matthew lai. that individual school might be made better after losing a few kids if they get to keep all of the same teachers because now the class sizes have gotten smaller. in that regard it's a mixed thing. from the system level it's unquestionable that it can hurt as the individual school could either hurt or potentially help depending. so we can close with confusion. >> david, thank you very much.

hot black [inaudible conversations] >> wigger professor figlio talk for an hour or so. now it's your turn you to open up phone lines, facebook and twitter to hear your experience is school choice and charter schools in particular, school vouchers and here's how you can do it. our phone numbers are (202)585-3880 if you're republican or democrat, the lights used is (202)585-3881. and for teachers and administrators, special onset for you is (202)585-3882. also on facebook, one of the questions today is about school choice and lots of responses. what it is some of those in a moment. on twitter, the hash tag is public at.

we like it to your phone calls momentarily. a look at a couple facebook posed in the last couple minutes. david ward same public schools will not work when they have unions that prevent headaches -- teachers have been fired or let go. it also doesn't work when unions are based on the parties to see objects can be pushed. what they want kids to learn are not there. edward allen says that question is scented with a system that holds no consequence for employees. jay martin with a different view think parents are most of the problem. sorry parents who don't care for their children and don't forget the ones that think it's someone else's job. joining us this evening on c-span two talk about the issue of school choice and take your comments and questions is the sean cavanagh, reporter and editor joining us with education week this evening to that his expertise on some of the findings he's reporting on.

sean cavanagh, thank you for being with us. by virtue help us to find the university charter school. what defines a charter school? >> guest: well, he charter school is a form of public school that operates with some autonomy or independence from the rules that govern traditional public schools. the charter school has gotten a lot bigger in the united states over the years. there are today about 6000 charter schools serving anywhere between 2,000,002.3 million students. their numbers have doubled approximately over the past decade and they are now placed in 42 states go with the most recent state be in washington state, where voters last year through a measure approved the creation of charter schools.

>> host: i want to give our viewers an actual look at how those numbers have jumped between 202,013. reports indicate in 2000 there were some 300,000 students in charter schools. 2013, the most recent figures, 2.3 million students. what is driving the boom in charter schools? >> a lot of it has to do with policy. state legislators have become more interested in governors and charter schools and have approved policies, allowing them to grow. some cases are moving caps on the growth in many cases a lot of people would argue it is demand from parents who want alternatives to the traditional public schools in their seats and neighborhood. so it is a variety of factors. also, there is a more diverse market for charter schools than there ever has been. you have charter schools that

cater towards students who struggle in school. you have charter schools that try to set very, very high academic expectations for students. and so, charter schools, the menu of options for parents is a pretty broad one right now. >> we are interested in our viewers experience for charter schools. we have callers on the line. washington d.c. is first to you tie round, with your comment. >> caller: thank you for having this conversation. i've had some expressions of charter school students and most of what i determined to be, one of the prohibit others to actually having a great experience has to invest their experience is sometimes the teachers get caught up in the

dynamics of what they're actually trying to get done within a given school week and had the administrators change subject matters sometimes midstream and there are restraint to catch up. .. if i understand the question correctly, shaking things up trying to put pressure is on the teachers to increase student

performance clearly that's going to be an issue with charter schools and a lot of traditional public schools and i know this from having met a lot of teachers in traditional schools over the years the principal comes in as the boss and they are the captain in the school and so when we are going to have a major say in shaping the policies of the school within the confines of the district says, and in shaping the morale and expectations for teachers so i think the circumstances he's describing our probably accurate and are talking about charter schools and they also apply to other schools as well. >> host: let's go to texas on the democrat line. plymouth texas. welcome. >> caller: my name is damien and i do not need school choice.

here in texas what i do on the assessment -- >> host: repeat your question months again i didn't hear your specific question. >> caller: my first one is assessment the public schools seem to do public tests and compare with the charter schools. do you have an explanation for that? >> guest: it depends on the state, the district and what the circumstances are on the traditional public schools and charter schools the charter schools and participating state

tests so in the 1 cents a lot more testing data is given to parents and is given to them ten or 20 years ago the parents have more options to prepare the results for their neighbor of charter schools for traditional public schools in their neighborhoods but we might get into this a little bit later. generally the results are pretty mixed when you're trying to prepare traditional public schools on the whole you give some studies that show more positive results and you get others that show traditional public schools. >> host: the call was from texas. here is a tweets from cristina talking about the issue of education. tell the governor not to wait until 2014 to fix the schools. the governor in his state of the state talked about charter schools. here is a bit of what he had to

say. >> not every child learns for the same purpose or thrives in the same setting in schools limiting a child to just one opportunity does nothing more than lament that child's future. the way forward must involve more public charter schools that offer a tuition free alternative to their neighborhood school. those innovative public schools already served more than 150,000 students across texas with more than a hundred thousand on their waiting list. it's also time to introduce scholarship programs that give schools of choice especially those that are locked into low performing schools. [applause] >> host: texas governor rick perry talking about a charter school and school choice. we're talking with education and we've been talking to your in your experiences with vouchers,

charter schools, taking your calls. the numbers are democrats, (202)585-3881 and for teachers and administrators that number is 202585 dirty 82. let's go to indiana. helena's on the line. welcome. >> caller: my question, this is only the second year that they've had vouchers. i'm sure that the catholic schools that are receiving the vouchers are good schools. however it would be my understanding that it is unconstitutional. is that constitutional -- >> host: thanks for the question. any answers for the caller from indiana? >> guest: it depends on the state you live. the caller may or may not know

the crucial point on which doctors are allowed to go forward or they are stopped by the court is what state constitutions, individual state constitutions say about the dodgers to read in many states it forbids public funding from flowing into them on public schools or religious institutions. of those features of the constitutions are often in the amendments and what often happens is the voucher proposal will be put forward and make it into the law and the state constitution is very restrictive on public funding in the private or religious schools the will be struck down and the indian a voucher program has been the subject of a lengthy court case

with one of many going on and around the country >> we have about a dozen states with felch programs including arizona, florida, georgia, louisiana, maine, mississippi, ohio, oklahoma, vermont, wisconsin and the nation's capital. going back to the charter school question, what's behind the increasing popularity of the vouchers? >> guest: i would attribute it to a couple of factors one of which is that in 2010, we saw republicans make a lot of games at the state level and legislatures and taking control of the majority of the governors' offices in the country today and in fact republicans at that point controlled more state legislative seats than they had since the great depression. one of the things high on their

education agenda was increasing private school choice. so what we saw after 2010 was a pretty significant growth in the passage of the private school voucher plans across the country. that's one factor. i think the school vouchers would say that these programs are proven pretty popular at the state levels and in the community is among the parents who feel that their children are trapped and economically struggling in the public schools. >> host: here this evening on c-span we are talking about school choice, vultures and charter schools. we've set aside a special numbers for teachers and administrators, (202)585-3882. let's go to fountain hills arizona and this is patricia on the line. >> caller: how are you this evening? >> host: fine come thank you. >> caller: my daughter is graduating from public school this year and going to a charter

school for her first six years of education. it was a phenomenal opportunity for her to go. my son on the other hand we had to pay for it. i believe firmly that young people should have an opportunity to be in a structured education, traditional education or an optional education whether religious and the voucher system appeals to me if i had a child that was coming into the school system i would definitely look at some of the catholic schools or christian schools as an option to leave >> host: patricia, thanks for the call. >> guest: i think that among the people that support vouchers, you can hear some of the arguments put forward and what your caller was talking a lot, with people support vouchers say look you have

parents who are taxpayers, why shouldn't they be allowed to use their portion of tax funding to send their children where they want with it's a traditional public school, a charter school or to a private institution? so when she talks about wanting to have that option, that's clearly one of the arguments put forward. on the flip side, what a lot of public school advocates say is the end of siphoning money from the traditional public school systems, and that's not a way that we are going to raise academic achievement on any sort of large scale of >> host: but according to the department of education over 50% of the charter schools in the country, 54% of our elementary schools. from the 27% our secondary and the combined school 19%. when they say combined, are they

talking about a charter school that runs all the way from i would mention montessori to all the way high school? >> guest: probably. i would assume some combination of elementary and middle school. part of the reason charter schools are more likely to be elementary schools serving the younger grades as many of them are trying to grow so they are trying to build from the ground up, they are trying to get a certain number of students and families involved and keep them on board and build from there. it's easier to do that. it's easier to start small and had a great year after year than to serve for everyone at once. >> host: stacy, republican color. good evening. >> caller: hello. >> host: you are on the air. go ahead. >> caller: i want to say i

agree with what the governor said and i just wonder why we have to make a choice between supporting public education and supporting a good education for the children. >> host: what's it like in california in the access to charter schools or the use of vouchers? >> guest: >> caller: i don't know about the use of the vouchers but i have to police and we went from the best public elementary schools in the state to the charter because it offered more in terms of academic growth at the level my children were at and the public school offered to move the ball weighs up a grade but that was about all they could do and the charter school was able to let them move ahead at their own pace. >> host: this is as good a time to ask as any the evidence out there when you compare a

charter school or public school across the country. tell us how they stack up. >> guest: you will hear me talk about that when we talk about charters or vouchers but when you look at the nationwide study of charters, for example, one of the most recent and often sided ones was done by researchers at stanford university about three or four there's ago it was a nationwide study looking at charter schools across the 16 states and what they found was about 17% of charter schools are not performing traditional public schools and about 37% or charter schools and would be outperformed by traditional public schools and the west was

sort of even so charter schools didn't fare very well in that study. now there's been other researchers but have come to different conclusions and so basically we are not going to find a steady at least not one of life seen that is going to settle this question of which type of school was the best option for all the students. >> host: teachers and administrators line we have a call from chester tom maryland. what do you do in the school system? >> caller: i work with students in third, fourth and fifth grade pivoted on the instruct them in enrichment and high level thinking. >> host: is this the public-school system manchester town? >> caller: yes. >> host: thanks for joining the conversation go ahead with your question or comment.

>> caller: how do you go about voting a charter school and have you seen an increase in test scores when students come out of a charter school? >> guest: to his first question, it depends on the state that you are in and the district, but in most situations there's the charter school authorize your and this is an entity whose job is to approve or deny the creation of the charter school and oversee its in the period where two, three, five years with charter schools allowed to operate and then it comes back up for renewal and they operate for another term and so depending on the state your in your maybe he before a state entity or some cases universities come off risers in

some cases it is local school districts. i'm not sure about research on students switching from the traditional public sector. >> host: this is sean joining along with sean cavanaugh. go ahead. florida, are you there? but move to idaho. you are calling on the other lines of you are a teacher or administrator? yes ibm. but i see is somewhat of a three tiered system coming through education you have prior to the charter schools and public schools and i don't see it so much as the people try to get their way away from the performance because it sounds

like the figures that prove one way or another but it's more of the learning environment to motivate parents and students getting away from the environment for lack of a better term the failures, the habitual discipline problems and a lot of the social issues involved in public schools. i think the wealthy are going to end up with their kids in private schools the motivated parents and the charter schools and my question is i guess when the enough kids are in the charter schools and a spread so thin what's going to happen with those leftover kids in the public schools?

>> host: thanks for the call. sean cavanagh are we seeing that already in the school system's? >> guest: that is an area that is receiving about of scrutiny so what the call was talking about is let's say you've got a motivated parents who are closely following the academic process they want to make sure they are in the right kind of school tailored to the kids need some. charter schools are schools of choice so one of the argument is if you have the lot of parents who are moving their students out of the traditional public schools and the charter schools the regular public schools are going to suffer. they have a lot of concerns being raised right now by the extent to which charter schools might be expelling students or suspending students at a higher rate than traditional public

schools. this is an issue that we examined in this week's issue of education. with that question raised about what level of impact is it and be on the traditional public schools especially given the charter school growth is one that no one seems to know the answer to but on a lot of policy makers minds. >> host: a couple facebook comments. you can we annette facebook.com/c-span.org rhetoric use the hash tag. interesting note i've seen surveys that showed 25 to 50% of public-school teachers and children based on the city's not exactly a ringing endorsement. another view from clear who says i have no issue with either but i feel no public funds should be supporting them and do we really want to make our public school system work or keep the draining

of resources and claiming it as a lousy job of educating our children back to what we talked about a few moments ago from the democrats evening. >> caller: it is for a parent to pay property taxes than if they want to send their child to a private institution they have to pay tuition at that institution so it is a double with any i think it is terribly unfair but the second issue is the fact that if the public schools or in my opinion not customer driven and other words they try to run by eletes test that dictate what the objectives of education are breaking with traditional values of the

country. for example they are now reportedly promoting homosexuality as a real-life example a lot of people do not like that. it isn't customer driven. if they would become a starter and they wouldn't have to worry about people leaving and going to a private institution. in those days we didn't have as many issues as you do today. >> host: thanks for weighing in. sean cavanagh? >> guest: i suppose the caller represents some of the folks who are dissatisfied with public schools and want other options. sometimes those other options are homeschooling their kids, the number of home-schooled students has grown over time sometimes they choose private

schools. one of the advantages of private schools is not only can they focus on very specific things and convey certain sorts of religious values or other issues but they get to do their own thing if three of many of the constraints the traditional public schools which have to serve everybody and have to offer a full range of services to everybody. when you talk about private schools you are talking about the different mission in a different way of going about that motion. >> host: sean cavanagh with education weekend you can read his reporting.

we want to look at vouchers and a particular place and one of the biggest was wisconsin governor scott walker he would like to extend the tauscher program and the city of milwaukee they have evolved in the shelter program 112 private schools nearly 30,000 students and the vouchers provided to $6,500 per student bill waukee passed the nation's first voucher program since 1989 and served as a model for a lot of other state voucher programs around the country. as you mentioned answers over

24,000 students. there was a study that came out a couple years ago by the state which found the dodgers were performing about the same level as the traditional public schools in milwaukee. a more recent study of the adversity of arkansas showed positive results with students with vouchers. i believe the program has been shown to offer, you know, pretty strong -- produce pretty strong rates and terms of graduation rates. but, you know, the al-awlaki voucher program is held up as the model and the opinions are going to break down pretty much along the lines of the voucher programs all over. but clearly governor walter believes if the parents are buying into the program and it

is proven popular it's going to prove popular in other school districts around wisconsin. so we will see if the legislature is buying into that. >> host: we are taking your facebook postings here is one looking at the issue of parents. this one says why aren't parents being more accountable for their kids' education. don't kids equals dumb parents to grand ledge michigan. joe, you work on the school system? >> caller: not here but in another district. i'm an assistant principal to the question i have for sean is do we need to do research or for lack of a better words has hedge fund managers that invest a ton of money into the charter schools that's something i've seen or is that something you've looked into? >> guest: there are four lack

of a better term well funded foundations and philanthropists who are investing in charter schools. that is true. one of the criticisms of charter schools is in many cases they are receiving extra funding that traditional public schools can't benefit from. the flip side of that committee advocates have been saying for years they are at a disadvantage when it comes to other sorts of funding, the ability to pay for buildings, find facilities, so the financial argument in terms of who is better off isn't that clear cut. if a caller is talking about for-profit managers of charter

schools, there are a significant number of those in the country operating charter schools in some cases online charter schools and they've come under a lot of scrutiny in the states and judging by what's going on in the state legislature is now they can expect to come under more scrutiny. >> host: we live here more from the school chancellor michelle on charter schools but first [applause] to the republican line. jason in utah. hello. >> caller: hello. i have a small comment to make and that is if i don't see teachers losing tenure for not doing their jobs i would be pulling all of my children out of public schools. on a man involved parent. so to sit there and say that i am not involved is ludicrous.

we have a lot of friends that have done this and i'm following right behind because. i think there should be something done about that. >> host: we will hear from sean cavanagh. >> guest: he said he's taking his kids to charter school, is the right? >> guest: he hasn't done it yet but that's his plan. >> guest: he seemed dissatisfied with the quality of teachers and how they are evaluated. but one of the advantages that the charter schools site over traditional public schools is

freedom in many cases from collective bargaining agreements governing teachers saw the charter schools have much more freedom when it comes to hiring and firing teachers to schedule them at certain times much more flexibility on the whole personnel front. the issue that the caller raises as it relates to charter schools goes to the heart of one of the biggest areas of appeals at least among the folks that like them. >> host: former chancellor michelle has written several books on education and address to the issue of school choice. she's going to be on booktv this weekend and here is part of what she had to say on the issue of school choice >> guest: there are lots of people who believe let's have universal vouchers and i don't agree with that. all i am for choice of not for

tracie sake but when it results in better outcomes and opportunities for kids so the voucher programs that we support or programs geared towards low-income kids who would otherwise be trapped in failing schools. it can be worked out in terms of how much money that culture should be. what i find it curious is the absolute aversion people have to the concept of the vouchers in public education. and there are two reasons. one is if i don't believe in public dollars going to private institutions and companies etc., then you don't believe in pell grants because that's the same thing. when kids get pell grants, federal dollars go to harvard or yale or wherever they want but part of the institution with those grants. you don't believe in food stamps

that can be used and medium that any store that you go to in your neighborhood. medicare can also be used not just at public hospitals. so, the idea that we can't do that in public education is an odd thing. the second thing is people often make the argument when it comes to vouchers they say we shouldn't take the money out of the system, we should take it and invest in the schools to make them better. here's why i think that makes no sense. we don't use that in any other part of our lives. if you went to a dry cleaner down the street and out of every ten come seven came back with a burn mark. would you do? you would stop giving. what if the people said you can't stop giving us your business and your money because we need your money to be a will to invest in new equipment and

to train our employees and if you take our business away, we are not going to be able to do that. what would you say? not with my shirts. so if we are willing to take that much care with our laundry, shouldn't we take that much care with our kids? >> host: that's the former washington, d.c. schools chancellor michelle talking about her new book "radical fighting to put students first." sean cavanagh, what did you hear a comment about school choice and in particular equated school choice vouchers in order to kind f. pell grants makes similar arguments about one i've interviewed her at one point i interviewed her and she was talking about how she actually sort of changed her view on vouchers when she was with the d.c. school system when she

would encounter parents who wanted to get into a good traditional public school in d.c., so she thought it made sense to also have private school options available to students, and d.c. has a filter system that's been put in place and established by congress for some time. i think think what she's saying is the need to be options in the district, charters, some vouchers, a traditional public schools and don't compete with each other. at the same time she seems skeptical of the universal

vouchers which money is going to go to a student she wants it targeted to low-income students in academically struggling schools and she's a democrat, i know, that is keeping with the democrats that supported vouchers. many of them i think supported in the more limited targeted fashion to >> host: we are under ten minutes so let's go to phone calls waiting to speak with sean cavanagh about school choice. brookhaven mississippi. welcome to the conversation on the democrats' line. >> caller: yes, sir, i'm proud product of the school system and served in the mississippi legislature and in the county i live, we have 33,000 residents. we have to.

we have one that is raised as a day school. the main problem of public education as the teachers are overloaded with too many students in the classroom, it shouldn't be more than 20 when the teachers are able to help me do the work when i couldn't good. if we could get back to that kind of system i believe the schools would work out fine. any thoughts on his call for more teachers and smaller classes? >> guest: the research is pretty mixed into a further lowering of the class's will be bringing a student achievement that won't lead to an academic pay off for students, but i tell

you low class sizes are popular and they don't like to hear the class size is increasing for their students. they like to hear their children are having a lot of interaction come face-to-face time with their teachers and so the voice of by the collar or i said just shared by many public school. on the lawn and calling as a teacher and administrator st. peter's florida. what do you do in the schools their? >> caller: i'm a teacher in the third grade. i'm curious what type of impact

will occur to the traditional charter schools and voucher programs? >> guest: we have written a bit about this and education. the traditional public school is going to have a huge impact. they are gearing up to give these common tests based on common standards which of the adopted by the 40 plus states. we've also written a lot of private schools are either considering because it makes sense the standards are sound among of the charter schools and so they are going to be expected to go along with the new common

standards as well they're nervous about this with a fringe on the traditional independence and ability to shape the curriculum in the way we want we are more agile and efficient. we can finely tune our curriculum to meet the needs of these new standards and do so in a way that is much more easily done in traditional public schools. >> host: not surprisingly, the department of education says 55% of charter schools are in urban areas and the city areas. a suburban areas, 21% of the charter school locations. small towns, 8% in the rural areas, 16% to read this to staten island and this is william,.

who really wouldn't be for vultures besides the teachings and in new york city we have the teaching which seems to be very powerful, and they almost would prevent vouchers from happening. to me if the parents really want to have a choice, why not put the dollars in the parents' hands and let them decide what is best for their children and what is succeeding? it makes sense to me that the school producing excellent students are going to attract more students and the schools that are failing are going to fail. putting dollars into the parents' hands and when the members decide which ones to send their students to come its publicly funded regardless where parents want to spend their money. >> host: we will let you go there and hit another view from new york. let's go to brooklyn.

your thoughts on charter schools or vouchers? >> it's interesting to hear people when they speak about a feeling school because actually what that means are the students who are there so there are people who are saying well, we are going to kind of monitor schools if you will come and they will succeed. and the schools, which sounds like a very kind of neutral term, talking about our young people who are in those schools. what i want to discuss its charter schools do not have to abide by the tests and rules of public schools for statistical purposes which is wrong we are comparing them equally so let's say that we don't have a true model because you cannot compare apples and oranges and that is what we are doing during the

whole discussion. >> host: in going to let you go there. talk about that a little bit but sean cavanagh do you want to address some of her specific comments? >> guest: she raises a good point the traditional public schools and charter schools especially at the national level where you are comparing thousands of schools across the state's sometimes these studies can be quite revealing but what a lot of people have told me is look, the kind of lessons we should be seeking are lessons on what are the different kind of experiments the charter schools are trying because part of the reason is the charter schools is created and the staffing and scheduling and perhaps part of

what we need to be doing is looking at what are the traits of the highly successful charter schools and how realistic is it to think that traditional public schools make up the vast majority of the public schools in this country, how realistic is it to think they can replicate those practices? >> host: we are going to wrap up the phone conversation and think the call those with a reminder of the conversation continues on line. facebook.com/c-span and don't matter you can use the hash tag publiced and we want to thank our guest, sean cavanagh edit her for education week and reminder you can read his reporting at edweek.com. sean cavanagh, thanks for joining us.

transportation secretary ray lahood talked about it at today's white house briefing. sure is a look at some of his remarks. >> sequester doesn't allow for moving money around. it just does not. and it's very clear in the idea that we can move money from one to another like the in prison

and fined which in most places has a pretty good chunk of money. sequester doesn't allow that. this is very painful for us because it involves our employees it's been a very painful for the flying public. you know, as a former member of congress, i heard complaints all the time from my constituents when their flight for delayed or when their flights were canceled, and this is going to have an enormous impact. >> can you clarify why. it's a model of mileage. >> we are going to reduce the number of controllers, which will reduce the ability to guide planes in and out. >> [inaudible] >> it's going to reduce -- it's going to reduce the number of controllers which will reduce the opportunity to die at the same number of planes they would ordinarily do at the same capacity. tsa is under homeland security.

that is different. >> your total budget is 70 billion? >> 55,000 employees. >> help the public understand you have a big budget. can't you find another way to cut out without telling air-traffic controllers to stay home? >> we are doing that. we are looking at every contract and we are going -- our lawyers are looking at every contract to see what we would have to pay as we begin to cut or adjust contracts. we are looking at everything possible and everything possible that is legal, we will do but this has to be a part of it. the dot has 55,000 employees. the largest number of those the largest number of those employees are controllers and they are all over the country.

there has to be some impact in order to save a billion dollars. a billion dollars is a lot of money. >> a lot of money, jonathan. where i come from, which is central illinois of billion dollars off and it's very difficult when you have this kind of -- the number of employees that we've guiding planes in and out of airports to do anything except look at everything and that's what we've done if are you having discussions with former colleagues up on the hill to warn them yes we are having discussions with members of congress. we have briefed staff people on the respective committees, the commerce committee and the senate, the committee in the house, and they know the impact and why we are doing this.

they know a lot about the numbers that we are dealing with because we work with them on a regular basis and the idea that we are just doing this to create some kind of a terrific scare tactic is nonsense. we are required to cut a billion dollars coming and if more than half of our employees are at the faa, they're has to be some impact. that's the reason we are announcing what we are announcing to respect what sort of the impact will these delays have on the airline industry and the financial system? to you have a forecast for what that will do? >> we are talking to the airline industry that represents all of the airline's we are talking to them and we will be probably talking to the individual airlines. we are making this announcement today and obviously we have to work through with them what impact this would have but there is no question they will have to restrict some of the flights

that are currently on their books to fly within the next 30 days. >> will would require the passengers for the lake? >> you will have to talk to them about that. >> where does this figure into that? >> you will have to talk to the airlines about that. >> they said they definitely -- >> we just started to talk to the airlines today. they are hearing about this, our folks are on the phone with them right now. we are on the phones with the airlines and with our unions, sending an e-mail to all of our employees so everybody gets the same information at the same time. >> is a possibility -- ceramica it isn't possible to continue the same schedules with less people. >> on the issue of safety how can you guarantee if you are scaling back? >> because that is what we are

in the business of. that's what we do every day. our people get up every day and think about safety. we think about it in a way that maybe nobody else thinks about it. certainly, and ordinary citizens. i have said many, many times, thousands of people today ordered planes, buses, got in their cars and the things they didn't think about safety. we would never take a back seat when it comes to safety. we just absolutely will not. we are looking at everything. we aren't just looking at the day's, we are looking at the contract, our lawyers are looking at every contract to see what impact to try to find some savings in those areas. i think republicans need to step up here. i served for 14 years. during those 14 years, 12 of those years cyprus and the

majority party. speaker gingrich was the speaker to pick you worked with and president clinton. we balanced the budget five of those 14 years. it meant that there was compromise. this requires compromise. this requires the republicans stepping forward with some ideas about how to keep essential services of the government running at the level people have been accustomed to. this is not rocket science. this is people coming together the way that other congresses have done to solve big issues. i suggest that my former colleague on the republican side, go see the movie " "lincoln," because it shows how hard it was back then to get it done. what he did is he gathered people around him in a way i believe president obama is doing by calling republicans, talking to them, trying to work with them, and when that happens, big

things get solved. the fiscal cliff got solved because people started talking to one another. up next assistant secretary of state discusses u.s. foreign policy efforts to improve conflict prevention and addressing crises. the secretary of the newly created state department team responsible for the government's role of countries and conflict in crisis. he discussed u.s. initiatives on syria, kenya and honduras. prior to leaving the bureau, he served as ambassador to the economic and social council of the united nations to be the this is about an hour. >> are we ready? >> welcome to conversation with ambassador frederick barton. just a few housekeeping things please turn off yourself loans completely so they are not even on vibrate. today's meeting is on the record

so investor barton will make a few remarks and then i will start with him for a bit and then ask the second half of the meeting open to q&a. so ambassador barton is from maine and he lost accent as a child of diplomatic growing overseas. he has led in a series of extremely interesting post including the commissioner of the agency, the ambassador to the economic and social council. he's taught at the woodrow wilson school. she's done a whole variety of other things including involvement in more than 30 conflict places, and he now runs last year, last march he was confirmed as the head of the new state department bureau for

conflict and stabilization organizations. this is an extremely new initiative in an old bureaucracy. and he has one of the most challenging job descriptions i've seen in a while to improve u.s. government effectiveness in preventing conflicts and addressing the crisis. ambassador barton? >> thank you very much. and thanks for the good introduction. but also for all of the friends that have come here today. in just about every road there's somebody that i've had a chance to work with or work for. the office of the transition and desha tavis that works in this space. i know that i have to be brief because there are a lot of people out here that no more than i do. so, i will try to be -- i am looking forward to the conversation of the questions that all of you are going to offer and speed is going to offer as well. we created a year ago this new bureau was created as a result

of the qddr process which secretary clinton really initiated, and this is one of the most direct outgrowths there was a feeling that the u.s. needed to be more effective, needed to be more coherent and the conflict and the crisis space. that challenge remains. it is at the table and to describe some of the internal challenges and needs that are at the top of my mind after this first year and then some of the first challenges i think are most direct in the needs of the countries that were looking and just to give you a quick taste of that and not dwell on the changes we've made inside of the bureau because there really is not just the start up but was a bit of a merger as well, an existing office that we had to take over said it was a

complicated transaction that we got through this year so i'm not going to dwell on that. happy to come back to it and probably not going to give you quite as many examples in these first critical elements because i think we will talk about the country cases. i'm sure that each of you are going to come back to some of those as well as the section goes on. but in terms of the internal needs obviously there's a big map of the opportunity that's still out there. just yesterday at the senior staff meeting that we typically have on monday mornings but because the holiday was yesterday, secretary carry finished the meeting buy basically saying that there are still more failed states, not fewer. there is still work, not fewer, and there's still a bad rule -- there are still a very bad rule of law trend.

that'll sort of falls into our basket of opportunity i guess. this is fraught with opportunities. and. the way to start off as to give you quickly what i see as the total needs still and these would ring true to many of you because you put them in this space before the first one is that no focus is required. even when we've got in and spent $3 million in the place of 3 trillion we still found that we were lacking focus and so focus is the first place so we started and in the first year there regionally dispersed and we found embassadors and embassies were eager to take on these challenges and we thought we could make a difference. so there's a lot of internal and external calculations. but also for the past 80% of our efforts have been on syria,

kenya leading up to the elections, burma and north central america particularly honduras. that doesn't mean that we have neglected the rest of the world but that is where 80% of our effort is coming and i think that essentially that is still the challenge for the u.s. government to focus the first. the second is that we need a center of gravity. it's still hard to find out who is driving the policy in the cases and who is in charge of the bureaucratic differences, who is not just convening meetings but actually resulting and setting the direction for the u.s. government. that is still a contribution in the early. to bring a dispassionate and other elements most of play the other point that we are pointing out is this immediate period this year to three injured 65 a

period there's still a need for the government to be much more agile to the it happens to be if you take the right step in the right direction you are probably going to have a greater influence. it's the venture-capital moment that of a bureaucratic process for how we deal in these places and get into them. they say look on our best day we will be there in a year so the process that takes place and can undermine that as well and it's still kind of the reform that we are looking towards is we have to have a conflict lens and a greater conflict expert. there's a natural tendency for people that know a place to know if they should dominate the discussion of the policy discussions but that's only one prospective to read one of our

most prominent ambassadors has worked for the middle east i forked and as bureau for 25 years and i've never had a single change in government. so now i'm having to deal with rapid and dramatic changes and someone that has worked that side of the issue. the speed with which things happen is clearly still a challenge for the existing models. on kind of the in country places where we still need to make changes and opportunities the first one is we still have to understand the context and the case much better. our analysis has to be much more objective. as you can all expect and you would assume if we send out