union. then we're live as education secretary arne duncan and health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius discuss the obama administration's agenda for early childhood education. and later a panel discusses the legacy and lessons of the holocaust for modern day europe. >> russian president vladimir putin held his annual question and answer session last week in moscow. a reported two million questions were submitted to him by text, e-mail and phone on russia's economy, the global economic crisis, corruption in government and the boston marathon bombings. from moscow, here's the first hour of the five-hour program. ♪ ♪

>> translator: good afternoon. live on the air is our direct line with vladimir putin. it's been a year since vladimir putin took his office as head of the state. how the country has been, what has been done, what has failed to be done is what we're going to be talking about today. we will have arina, and clay and a number of other helpers who will work here in the studio. we have -- [inaudible] working the call center, and you can also watch us on channel 24 and listen to us on the radio.

so live on the air is president vladimir putin. [applause] >> translator: our call center is still receiving phone calls at this toll-free number. you can also ask a question by texting to 04040 or access us over the internet on the

following web sites which are on your screen. we're just starting, but we already have an all-time record. over the last four days we have received 1.5 million phone calls, hundreds of thousands of texts and as me mails. in other words, we have close to two million questions. and this is just the beginning. the bulk of the workload on the telephone lines is beginning here and now. just imagine every minute as many as 3,075 individuals are trying to get through to us here at the call center and ask a question of vladimir putin. this is an unprecedented amount of interest, so, please, try your best to get in touch with us. we're waiting for your questions. there are a great number of subjects that are of interest to our citizens. vladimir putin, here in the studio today are people, some of who are well known across

russia, some of them are so-called your authorized representatives or people authorized to act on your behalf, others may not be that well known to others, but they are way f what you call daily heroes. these are people whom we have covered in our reporting. they're not ministers or artists, they're engineers, doctors, they're people who are real daily heroes and who live in russia. and also based on our tradition we will visit several communities, in particular the town in the maritime area or, we'll be in the legendary villages, in the cities of@petersburg. as we prepared for this program, we have also invited individuals to our mobile sites who are target groups of sorts so that we can discuss with them the most relevant, most pressing matters of our life from growth

of crisis, to corruption to issues in the housing and utility sector, to the situation in education, public health and science. and, of course, many other subjects which will be defined by our tv audience. so, please, call us, text us, leave us question at the, at our web site and we'll get going. well, before we do, i would like to greet everybody who is here in the studios and all our citizens who are showing such a vivid interest in today's meeting of ours which is not the first one. it's a well known format by now to an extent, perhaps, it is a formal kind of meeting, but it still is very useful. this is, there are no two ways about it. such direct interactions with our citizens give us a very clear cross-section of what is with of interest to our society at any point in time. there's a direct exchange of opinions, direct information.

we receive of feedback from the regions. this is extremely important and highly useful. >> translator: so vladimir putin, a year ago you once again became president of the russian federation. you signed a series of decrees which were known as may decreases which describe the goals that country's expected to achieve over the next five years. to what extent are you pleased with this schedule of compliance with these decrees and, if possible, what percentage of the goals set in the first year of your presidency has been implemented by your subordinates? >> well, i would not, i would not talk about percentages which would be quite complicated, but i can say right away that the goals that were set forth immediately after i took office as president, they undoubtedly are extremely difficult for compliance and performance. and i did this intentionally. i intentionally and i admit it

here, i confess here that i set the bar somewhat high for the result that is to be achieved by the exthetive. executive branch not just in the center of this country, but in the regions of the russian federation. because if we don't work with great intensity, our results will be much more modest. what has been done, what hasn't been done and whether or not i'm satisfied, on the whole i'm satisfied. i believe the work going on in a satisfactory way. i'm sure there will be many questions about problems can which does mean that there are some setbacks. however, what has been done? in the first place, i would like to mention that the household income has increased. our salaries have been growing and recently, of course, we had a meeting which included not only the members of the government, but also experts, many experts and, in general, from the theoretical perspective it is fair, have taken note that

the wages are growing faster than labor productivity. this from the perspective of economics is not the best thing to have. however, from the perspective of social justice, of course, we are moving if the right direction. and the wages and salaries have not and household incomes have not only grown due to the increases in the cash allowances for military retirees and the servicemen, but the economy in general. this is number one. we have twice adjusted pensions for inflation. in february and in april at the old age pension has for the first time exceeded the 10,000 ruble mark just as we agreed immediately after may of last year. we made what is a very important decision in terms of supporting the demographics. in addition to the so-called motherhood capital or birth capital, we have also introduced payment for delivering a third

baby in a family in demographically-challenged regions sp. such payments have already started being made. this payment is at the level of a child's subsistence level which varies across the regions, but on the average in this country it is approximately 7,000 rubles. for families that have children, this is tangible support. op the whole -- on the whole, the demographics have been improving. we are now registering record-setting indicators as far as birthrate. the situation as far as declining the death rate has deteriorated somewhat. this is something that i would like to know especially, and this is something that needs to be looked into. but the demographic situation is developing in a positive way. we have increased payments to our tertiary school students just as we agreed, and a firm of -- a number of positive steps in the social sphere has been made. one of the important areas is to

improve the business environment, and there are positive trends and organizations have taken note of that so-called ratings which i don't have particularly much trust for. on the whole, it has been noted, and the business committee agrees that there has been progress in terms of improving the conditions for doing business which includes in corporation and -- incorporation and access to infrastructure although there are still very many problems in terms of access being, access to the electric power. on the whole, this is like this. and, of course, there's a large-scale program to reequip the armed forces with modern weapons. once again, i think it would be wrong to talk in percentage terms, but on the whole the situation in satisfactory. >> translator: vladimir putin, if you let us, let's go paragraph by paragraph. we have of here a medical

professional, and let's hear her question. before she speaks i would like to explain who she is. she's a medical worker who walked three kilometers in the middle of a snowstorm because the ambulance got stuck, and as a result she saved an entire family from death. mr. president, you have said that the wages have been increased. but as a medical professional, i have not felt that impact at all, especially for ambulance employees. i work as a mid-level medical professional. we're responsible for human lives, and we receive 3.5 thousand rubles in terms of federal monthly payments. the nurses who work with doctor cans and are not responsible for human lives receive 5,000. so why do we receive less than

nurses? that is the question. on the whole, the wages are increasing. it's an obvious factor. as far as medical personnel, their average salary across the country is just a notch high or than teachers. you have just mentioned a problem which, obviously, apparently exists. i will try both for my sake and your sake to speak out loud about it, to discuss it and understand what the problem is. here mier interpeckive -- perspective. you will remember that i once appointed additional payments from the federal budget. 10,000 plus 5,000 for gps, plus 5,000 for mid-level medical personnel and three plus six for doctors who work at the ambulances, three for mid-level personnel and six for doctors, physicians who work at the ambulances. starting january the 1st this year, the government transferred these particular authorities

along with the pun to the regional governments -- along with the money to the regional governments. the amount of funding is roughly 40 billion rubles. all of them have been transferred into the system of mandatory medical insurance and have been delivered to the constituent regions of the russian federation. i believe that the problem here has to do not with money, but with management. it's a managerial problem. i'm often criticized for the fact that i micromanage. we call it manual mode. i've been accused of overdoing it. i believe that in this particular situation what has happened is a management setback. in fact, there has been an increase of payments to the mandatory or medical -- mandatory medical insurance, 61%, and the money has been transferred from the federal budget to the public, to the health insurance system to the regions. once again 40 billion rubles. the regions should have paid

this monies to medical personnel, because the money was earmarked. it was, in fact, colored, if you will, and it was transferred for these specific purposes. why didn't happen? we have to figure out. i believe that it was a mistake made by the government and by the appropriate ministry. the public health ministry should have micromanaged it. whether or not the monies that have been allocated to the regions are, in fact, reaching employees like yourself. apparently, this was not done. this is number one. number two, when the regions did receive this money, and i did tell my colleagues in the government, i told them that they have many goals, they have many problems, and it's not a given that they will automatically deliver the money to medical employees. they might just divert it to other goals. and that, too, needs to be looked at, where exactly that money went, how that money was spent. if it was spent on other things,

it has to be returned and paid to you personally and all of your colleagues. we will do it separately, and i will say carefully there is ground to believe that all of the monies that is due to medical employees will be received by medical personnel. .. clearly were transferred. i'm mentioned the amount, and in some regions they have not reached the addresses. the government is risking not

complying with the social obligations. we should punish the managers of the regions where people have to survive on 5000 rubles a month. i couldn't agree more. especially if they're sitting in accounts, that's one thing. but if the monies has been spent on something else that is a violation. you have already mentioned the unprecedented meeting on the economy. it kind of look like a meeting of despair, if you will, due to the economic crisis. and also a meeting of hope, because the meeting did look for growth points, for hope points if you will, for ways to find a solution, a way out of this. so what was it from your perspective? and you personally, how do your -- coincide or not coincide? we are not talking despair and

we're not talking hope. just a working meeting between the relevant ministries, government agencies, the president of the central bank, and members of the community. we, by the way, did not distribute ourselves high ranking officials. we also had experts there. we discussed the problems plaguing the global economy. how it impacts our economy, but, of course, the trigger for that meeting was the fact that the economic growth rates have been slowing down in this country. there's nothing unusual about it. there's nothing unexpected about it because experts have for a long time, and we have long understood, we have all become experts ourselves. we have all understood that the decline in the global economy, especially in the euro zone, is making an impact on us in a serious way. because the euro zone is our primary trade and economic partner, more than 50% of our trade is with europe.

where several years many european countries have been experiencing recession and declining, that, of course, could not help but in practice. and, finally, it started making an impact on us directly. so we've got to reevaluate the situation, to listen to different points of view, to understand whether we have made a contribution where we are at least partially responsible for this decline. when i say we, i am referring to all of the levels of authority, both the government, federal government, the regions of the presidential entities. whether we have made a contribution to this decline with our policies. and i'm talking about negative contributions. there is no secret here. part of the members of the cabinet believe that yes, we have made a negative contribution, and a visible one. some of the members of the government believe that it is not our responsibility. this is the result of a negative

development of the global economy and we simply must watch closely what happens there, and to have, to respond if the crisis starts getting bigger. this is not, this is not an argument when the presidential administration and the government. this is a debate, an argument inside the general community that manages the country. by the way, experts were not -- we don't have a dividing line between the president and the government, between the administration and the government. that dividing line goes across other issues in terms of how to respond to the incidents that are happening. it doesn't take a specialist to understand what the core of the problem is, what the core of the argument or rather discussion is. certain colleagues believe that several factors have come together. first of course there is a

global economic crisis that is ongoing, including in the euro zone, and we are being influenced by as well. the second thing, it is excessively tight monetary policy inside the russian federation itself. to a certain extent it is well grounded because it intends to target inflation, to keep inflation in control. that is to confine the growth of prices which concerns the citizens and interests of economy that many believe this has put restrictions on the money supply. the central bank has switched to the closing rate come as no longer buying hard currency domestically. therefore, the money supply has decreased. and we believe that we've introduced the so-called budgetary rules and we have started removing the so-called petrodollars from the market in an increased amount which is also reducing the money supply. then our banks, despite a

reduction in inflation, are continuing to lend only on high interest rates, both natural persons and legal persons. everybody who is involved in the economy, 14, 15%. where as the inflation has dropped to seven and change, and by the end of year it is expected to hit six, 5.9%. some colleagues believe corrections need to be made, adjustments need to be me. that is where the dividing line between the parties, the eichmann is. i believe the adjustments are properly required but i would like to emphasize and to call your attention to the fact that the fundamental of our economic policies will remain unchanged. we will continue to pay attention above all the macroeconomic indicators, and orient the real economy in a way that the social department of republic are satisfied. increased --

>> are you satisfied with the government to account for the possible prices? >> well, there hasn't been any measures yet. the thing is that we are a great deal of questions that we received over the last few days about the government, and especially since the direct line was just open minutes ago. let me recall one in which was received over the internet. he asks this, he says, do you believe that the cabinet of ministers in its current state is not capable of performing its duties in full? isn't time to replace some of the ministers? and, of course, there's the expected decrease in against education minister that is under a lot of firing right now, and the parliament wants him to resign. would like to hear from you. 's. what's the name of this

individual? >> [inaudible] >> well done. what we need to have is for managers of any level, both in the presidential and in the government, will feel and understand that rank-and-file citizens are keeping a close eye on the results of our work and our -- one needs to think about the opinion of the public in his or her work. as far as individual members of the government, or the government on the whole, i of course have repeatedly heard numerous calls for firing this miniature or that minister, or fire the entire government. >> i do share your viewpoint that all government levels must be held accountable. on the other hand, the government hasn't been in office even for a year yet. the presidents inauguration did

say a year has passed but actually your has not passed. the inauguration took place on may 7, and the government was not formed until after the inauguration. so the cabinet has not even been in office for a year. of course, there are complaints come in quite a few complaints even in a short period of time, but we should let the members of the cabinet realize themselves all understand that someone is unable to comply with his or her job. but a year is not enough. is a colossal amount of responsibility. yes, there can be a lot of complaints, but whether or not we need this kind of personnel reshuffling, i don't know. it likely will cause more damage than do good. we'll talk about retention to get because the audience has a lot of question. >> we have invited -- let us let him express his expert opinion. just a reminder, alex was responsible for russia's

financial sector and was in charge of the finance ministry since 2000. >> i would mention something else. that is all true but on two occasions he was like that but international expert and as the best finance minister in the world. >> thank you. and thank you for the invitation to be here. i would continue your words regarding what influenced the fact that last year our economic growth began to decline, and in q1 of this year was also 1.1%. and the correlation between the externalities and domestic factors, i have to say that this year is the main factor is driving toward the reduction of the domestic ones. because they will be high oil price. we can feel th the externalities are the stupid big oil prices are still high, despite the high oil prices with low growth rates. this did not happen i in the previous years before the

crisis, and what do i think is the main thing that should have been done by the government? our economy needs to depart from oil dependence, from mining the natural resources, from its influencing all aspects of her life. i don't think this departure is happening. yes, certain measures are being taken but these factors remain serious in our economy. the second thing, the government should be more clear, more understandable. they should give clearer messages to the business community. today, we don't even know what the insurance payments will be for the hub in this community. you know that last year small businesses suffered from insurance payments, insurance contributions. a decision needs to be made to rescue them.!ú#ú third, there were promises that regions would receive more support. i do support that.

many believe that in the past, government we held at centralizing expenses. we have begun to increase federal expenses including the military, and the pension system, other measures are needed. part of the expenses and revenues need to be given over to the region so that they will feel free come and then growth will be motivated by the region. i cannot speak about all the factors but a very important factor is the understanding of that part of the active society that is creating jobs and is investing. what kind of political system we have in this country? today it has emerged as a new confidence factor which in our country, which is quite capable of finding consensus and keepgw matters, it still bothers the society. those who prefer to work and invest and create new jobs. and perhaps i will argue with you on another matter. experts have noted that they are

growing faster than labor productivity in this country and, of course, we are pleased that these salaries and wages are growing. we must understand this kind of growth and salary has absolutely objective limitations. we will then invest less and subsequent the economic growth will even continue to slow down. so the model should be as follows. a higher increased growth rate to be followed by high growth acceleration. that should be the sequence. the meeting that you had, and it did stop certain eyes and cross certainties, this is something i should have been done a year ago. thank you. >> well, i have known you for a long time. and we are always debating, and, of course, has been the finest minister into governments. you will have no doubt that i

always treated his respect with a great amount. i have always treated his opinion was a great amount of opinion. i have told you in two occasions he was recognized by the international expert community as the best finance minister in the world, and i'm quite sure that that, in fact, was the case. but he was the best finance minister, not the minister on social matters. like i said, and he and i, we discuss and debate and argue a law. and undoubtedly, i agree with what he said, and that is the labor productivity should outgrow the growth of the excellent. that is the fact for the railway sector. somehow they've maintained this positive trend. i don't know about the last few months but that was the case last you. and, of course, how important go to put our economy on the innovative development have.

it is not easy to do when the energy prices are high, and it is very difficult to transfer the main cash flows in that direction. in which more environment needs to be created for the manufacturing sectors. how can this be done? through tax incentives. so the entire tax system needs the overall. the finance ministry including when i was -- was always very conservative. it was always very careful. because this means losses to the federal budget. and the federal budget is what props up the defense and the social obligations and the tensions, and everything else. second, the centralization of finance, the transfer of the revenue sources into the regions. the finance minister has always been extra in the conservatively

treated his idea. but on the whole of course this was the crack trend. and needless to say we have to follow this road. i'm hoping that his successors with professional support will be moving in that direction gradually, and again i couldn't agree with that more. as far as the fact that we are now running out of the opportunities for inorganic growth driven by high prices of fuels, that is also true. true he did not making it right now but he always tells me about this when we have private meetings. and id and agree with them. there's one thing i would like to note, call your attention to come it's not just about high oil prices. whether or not external conditions are favorable or not favorable depends on the condition of our partners. say oil prices are high but metal prices are low because the

demand for metals internationally has gone down. this is a major factor that is setting up a whole number of dominoes, the demand for coal is lower. the demand for transportation is lower, and transportation secretary is suffering. so the extra economic factors are still satisfactory, but i don't think they are as favorable as ever. on the whole, i am in touch with him and his colleagues, and his team as far as i know, he is now teaching in a very effective way. i am in touch with him and i -- which agency is doing which have given so many years of your life, and i know that you are sympathizing with the big you are in touch with your former college. i hope that your expert support will continue. and as far as the confidence of the public, that is also true. because depending on how much

the public, this is a site, trust the actions of the authority, our overall effectiveness and competitiveness depends on the amount of the trust. you have twice -- >> you have twice praised him over the last few minutes. when will you bring it back to power? >> he doesn't want to. >> have you made offer? >> yes. >> did he refuse? >> yes, he did. he turned it down. >> well, i believe they are ready. he is a slacker, he won't work. he feels that is going to be hard, and he rolls over. and sits around. just a few words. i was deputy prime minister and was responsible for the economy for a while, but the system of half measures and have reforms

will not work. russia will not be able to depart from its oil dependence. i'm not saying that my opinion is the most importan or is the truth but there has to be a program. widowhood program today for this country to depart from oil dependence, a program where we would assign a proper place to each individual measure, such as money, institutional reform, structural reform and the roles of the regions. that is the problem. the inertia processes and micromanagement and other things, this is not what i'm ready to do. i embrace to engage in real things. i don't know how interesting it is for everybody in the studios that we have this kind of discussion. it's not like it's a verbal altercation or something. because i highly value his opinion. it was not an accident that i mentioned that it was recognize the best finance minister, but not any social development.

there is a sincere, was he right or was he not right when he said that it's harmful when the salaries are growing faster than labor productivity? yes, he was right. should we have held it back? if some of the things were already absurd. for instance, the military retirees pensions were receiving less money than the civilians. those needed to have been raised, but they cannot just be raised out of the blue sky. and, of course, the money allowed to servicemen also needed to be increased. i know his position on this matter, and it is very balance. in his day, he and some of his colleagues who are now handling a lot of money and different banks, actually initiated

monetization of benefits. they transitioned benefits to the money basis. we argued for a long time. i said you will be able to do probably, you will be able to do. no, no. we know what the results of it was but of it was the then head of the money of those problems, and the social and political costs were quite high of those measures. and, frankly, speaking, i actually saw that that would happen. but indeed if nothing had been done at all, transport probably would've stopped in certain regions because the number of people who use benefits increased so much that there were more people who have benefits that pay discount tickets for transfer services than people who paid the full price. and the transit system began to

fall apart. however, these rough measures in the economy would end up looking at what the implications so she would be are not always justify, ou still very this countr k you. >> as we prepared for this event, it turned out that one of the most hotly discussed subject is corruption. dozens who call the call center were interested in corruption. we had the retired colonel, victor. i'm also an authorized representative of russia. >> i know that you sometimes he'd my opinion here that is why i was before as long, as exactly as long as he did. for six months now, russia and its armed forces with their mouths agape have been watching

how the investigation is going on of the bunch of criminal investigations and cases that have plagued our service and a looming figure of the former defense minister. as i investigate this case, i've run into a problem that is a paradox. on the one hand, dozens and hundreds top notch professionals have discovered the fact evidence, documents which irrefutably prove that these fraudsters in the defense ministry are, in fact, guilty. on the other hand, we hear statements that there are no facts sufficient to bring them to responsibility. and some of those appearing in the criminal cases still appear as witnesses. this is one aspect or another aspect for me as an expert, as reporter, as your authorized

representative is completely unclear. why do we have double standards in our justice system? many of those who appear in criminal cases are already in prison. some have already done their time, and others are in some kind of an elite state under house arrest. and as if to mock as they are still writing poetry. although poetry is best written from the death of siberia and more jovian forests. i have two small questions for you. the caustic russian people have asked me to ask those questions of the. the peoples sake, that some powerful, almighty secret hand is manipulating the investigation of this immense criminal case. and they want me to ask you this question. do you know whom this hand belongs to? and the second question, you as

the guarantor of our constitution, how do you see your role in that, and ensuring that the investigation of this title of criminal cases, investigation proceed in a normal, honest, open principled manner rather than become a parody that the people are laughing at? and in conclusion, i would like to ensure confidence that as you answer my question you will not invoke the 51st article of our constitution. thank you. >> well, you are in the wrong profession. you should not be a reporter. you should be in the justice system. but as a lawyer, as a lawyer. victor, i greatly value your

support asthma authorize individual i know that you are someone who takes close to heart what is happening to this country, into the armed forces. you said the facts prove the guilt of all the individuals you have enumerated. and whether or not this prove somebody's guilt is only something that can be decided by a court of law. with all my respect, neither newspaper know what individual members of the mass media, nor individual citizens, nobody can declare somebody guilty in advance. this can only be done in accordance with the constitution, which you have just mentioned, by a court of law. as far as from the hand belongs to, i don't know about hand, legs and other body parts, but i would like to call your attention to the fact that it

didn't take long between when i reassume to my position as commander-in-chief and these cases, be instituted. and i think that it is clear that they could've been commenced before, and that the law enforcement agencies have not been notified that there were problems there. and this investigation is going in an objectively, and it would be taken to the very end. and equally objectively, a conclusion will be brought as to who is guilty and who is not guilty. and if somebody is guilty, been guilty of what? and then adequate measures as provided for by the law will be taken. as far as the fairness of the fact someone is writing poetry,

somebody is sitting in siberia, we over the last few years, and recently, have spoken a great deal about humanizing our criminal legislation. it is not always well justified. i mean, humanization is not always well justified. when someone has created a great crime, he or she must receive what he or she deserves. in the case of economic crimes, frequently remand is considered excessive because individuals who cannot obstruct the investigation, there is no need to rename them and put them away and find him guilty prematurely. somebody sitting in siberia was in his or her expensive apartment. if someone is sitting in jail, especially on an unjust sentence, it does mean that they

should be taken to jail. what we should look at is not one that she is in jail. to look at whether or not others are in jail for a good reason, unjust sentences. if they've been any abuses on the part of law enforcement authorities. that's what needs to be paid attention to. and if investigation believes that if she is where she is and not obstructing the investigation, it is up to the investigator. if she is not obstructing the investigation, she's in her apartment, investigators summoned her for interrogations and interrogator and proper colleagues, let it be that way. however, something that you're completely right about, and i've no doubt about it whatsoever, this case will be seen through the very end. however, that does not mean in any way, shape, or form that our political consideration only to look great in front of the public that is enraged to put these people away at any cost.

we should not go back to the dark period of 1937. if they are responsible they will be punished. if a certain extent they're not responsible and guilty, has to be said and clear, and shown to the people. that they are not responsible, if they are not. and the fact that there are many high profile cases like that, that is not a bad thing. i believe that is good. people should know what's going on, and hopefully bureaucrats embrace levels will understand, finally that we don't have anybody above law. as far as the justice system itself, for which there are many complaints, here is a statistically. out of the entire number of cases, only 15% of parties to cases appeal to a superior judicial instance to try to get

the sentence reversed and the case reviewed. so as far as the courts, there has been a lot of criticism but the numbers speak for themselves. only 15%. on the whole, this fits into normal international practices. and this case will also see it as far as the armed forces, i believe that's an exaggeration to the armed forces are engaging in common -- learning the types of a button, material and weaponry. >> there's a great deal of questions regarding the case of -- i've looked at some of the tax. ares i. why didn't the commander-in-chief know that the defense minister no? and they're also asking if this will turn into yet another campaign mongering issue. >> i've are said that i did not become commander-in-chief until may the seventh last year. look at when the case was

commenced. as soon as i started looking into cases, as soon as it was shown to me, including the results of the work carried out by the accounts chamber, it became clear that the accounts chamber was not going to be sufficient and that law enforcement agencies needs to get involved. and the materials were immediately turned over to the prosecutor's office or the investigative committee. am i understand you correct that previously this case was being hindered? >> well, previously there were no results available of the audit why the account chamber. once the results become available, at about that time i became president and cnc. it was reported to me. >> what about campaign mongering? >> i believe that corruption in general and in this can specifically -- by the way, corruption exists everywhere. just take my word for it.

what differs is the level of corruption. of course, everyday corruption, data corruption is beyond the pale in thiscontry. is just come has just -- in fact it poses a threat to the side on all. that is why we will fight it as hard as inflation and the economy and we will try to finish it also to the extent possible. >> your initiative, bureaucrats are not allowed to have accounts abroad. they have to report their income and expenses. and many see this as a good, positive initiative, but many others, including in the government, believe that things are being overdone in the anticorruption. >> do you think that things are being overdone or has there been underdone? >> victor and i just debated. he believes they are being underdone but everybody has to be seized and not let go. i believe that nothing is being

overdone. as far as underdone, we will look at the results of the fight against corruption that is under way. by the way article last year, over 800 individuals were brought to criminal responsibility, who have the so-called special legal status. and that is a reference to representatives, members of law enforcement system. legislators at various levels. and highest-ranking officials. over 800 of those. these are not just individual cases that have become high profile. there are many of them in this country. this work will continue to work. if something is being overdone, he heard my position regarding the service case. only a court of law can decide whether or not an individual is guilty. that is why i hope that nothing will be overdone. unfortunately, it is abuse in the law-enforcement system itself. this has always been the case, and, unfortunately, it remains

the case. and what victor said, some are sitting in jail and perhaps unjustly. is something that needs to be look into any very specific specific manner. recently maybe a month or six weeks ago i was at the meeting of the board of the general prosecutor's office, and we discussed this in great detail. my position is very clear. there must be no violations in the law-enforcement system and if there are any, they must be identified and responded to. >> well, there are some very clever tricks as we know. apprised by 30 members of the state duma have divorced a fictitious would only do not declare their joint property. as for sure question, the one concerning reporting income and reporting expenses come something we have often wished and then a ban on accounts. some of our liberal economists believe that a ban on accounts is bad. that is, restriction on certain russian citizens. i would like to emphasize that

any citizen of the russian confederation is allowed to keep their money where they see it fit, including an important financial institutions. and in my day not only is, did i agree to that, i supported the. why is that? because too often our citizens have been taken to the cleaners. in the early '90s, all the savings were burned, so to speak. then in 1998 people lost everything again. people should have the freedom of choice. however, there is a certain category of people who make conscious choice of being a public servant, and let them decide for themselves what matters to the more. whether to keep them in a broad order to serve the citizens of the russian federation at the high positions that they occupy, have been promoted to. and there is one other extremely important thing. if somebody keeps his or her money abroad, and if we're talking serious money, he always

depends on the government system of the country where he has that money. people should be free from that dependence. a person must make a choice. if he wants to be a public servant, nobody is taking away his money. let him bring the money back to the country. if people who work in the area of economy and the government, the members of both houses of parliament, it is on them at the end of the day that the economic state of this country depends. if they don't trust on economic system, then what are they doing here? let them bring their money back here, then there will be more chances that they will work harder on strengthening our own national financial and economic system. >> of course the high profile story of the last few weeks, the death in london. first of all, would like to declare by the situation. wasn't there a letter?

did he write you this letter? >> well, you know, i would rather not talk on the subject. but, of course, it's not appropriate to avoid discussing it. the first letter i received from him earlier this year, i think sometime in february, and the second letter, very recently, after he died. it was the same language, the same text. so there were letters. not one letter. >> could you brief us on? >> it was handwritten by the way. one was fully handwritten. the other was partially handwritten. the header was handwritten and then it was doctor. then there was some handwriting. the first letter was given to me by one of his farmers -- former business partners, a russian citizen. and the second one was given to me very recently also by a business partner of his, but a foreign national.

>> can you give us any details at all? >> well, as a matter of fact, it is already in the media. yes, he does right that he believes that he made many mistakes, caused damage, asks for forgiveness. and to be given an opportunity to return to his own country. >> why wasn't this letter shall? >> you know, in the west there have been accusations. >> you know, these letters, these letters were, are, are fairly personal, even though we never had a close personal relationship. of course, we knew each other, but we didn't have a close relationship. and yet he approached me with a request. >> some of my colleagues around me asked me to immediately publish this letter, and i am extremely grateful to god for preventing me from doing so. i'm sorry, i would like to

clarify one more thing. did you respond to the first letter he received in february? >> no. the thing is he asked to be given a chance to return to russia. >> of course th a head of staten pardon and can do other things, but that required some legal analysis. i'm not talking about the ethical aspects of it. i would have had to consult the supreme court, the prosecutor's office. i would've had to understand the legal aspect of the case. would you allow the results -- if his family approach to? >> well, of course. there was no permission from me that is required. it is up to the family. >> just one more question. how plausible do you think the a version of this death been the result of an operation by foreign intelligence services to? >> well, i don't know. they might have. i don't know. anything is possible, but we don't have such information.

>> thank you. >> going back to the conversation of security services and intelligence services, and a lot has been said due to the result of his death on the subject. over the last few days, other tragedies have taken place. the security services are now investigating the terror attacks in boston, and in russia there's been an investigation of this horrific crime in the city of -- and there's a tremendous number of questions as well but as far as our sad story. the most record as question goes like this, and i'm quoting, why couldn't capital punishment be reinstated for people like this hardened criminal? there is no confidence that after he does his time he will not repeat this nightmare again. it turns out that such psychos

and donors are not afraid of anything in this country. and nothing, nothing can be punished in this country, unquote. >> a matter of capital punishment has been discussed in society for a long time. and sometimes when you deal with something like this, you hand almost on its own reaches for a pin design documents to return, reinstate capital punishment, or to ask the legislative to do so. but specialist and criminologists need to be discussed, and specialists believe that the toughening of punishment does not eradicate the crime, does not reduce the level of crime. i remember once offering this example, was another direct line, in the roman empire that was capital punishment for pickpockets. the largest number of crimes where things are so from

people's pockets was during the public executions. because they drew the largest crowds to the public squares. this is a textbook example from criminology. i understand people's outrage and their desire to punish the criminals. the matter is efficiency. these criminals that we are talking about now, or others like them, why would they necessarily be freed? we have such a measure of punishment as life in prison. and believe me, the conditions of living there is not the same as living at a resort. if this is life in prison without parole, which is something that they can ask for in 25 years, that's in fact what is. this is something that is talked about and discuss. i frankly thought about as well. >> in continuation of the american story, i will quote yet another i think important message. apparently it came from a fellow russian citizen who listen to the united states.

-- who lives in the mistake. he asked after the terror attack in boston, many americans are dead set against russia because the terrorists have come from the caucuses. the entire american internet is filled with anti-russian comments. we have a tense relationship with the u.s., and now we will be accused of the acts of terror. how are you going to solve this problem. >> i believe that the reconciled citizens of the trinity have nothing to do with. they don't understand what is going on. i would like to appeal to our citizens and assistance of an estate and to anyone who is watching international issues and say the following. russia is itself a victim to international terrorism. in fact, it was one of the first nations to fall victim to international terrorism. i have always been enraged by the fact when our western partners, by the way, your colleagues from western mass media would refer as rebels to our terrorists who committed

atrocities, bloody and heinous crimes in our country. and they were almost never referred to as terrorists. in fact, they were given assistance, information support, financial support, political support. sometimes direct, sometimes in direct budget always accompanied their operations. we on the other end of always said that instead of making declarations, that there is a common thread, we should engage in joint work and cooperation work closely with one another. now, these two criminals have proven that our message was correct in the most effective way possible. yes, you can discuss the tragedy suffered by the chechen people when they were deported by stalin's regime from chechnya, but were only chechens victims of those reprisals? know. the very first, the very large victims of those reprisals was the russian people. they suffered more than anyone

else. this is our common history. once inspected as much as he once. what does the united states have to do with it? how did the united states off and then? is not about the ethnicity at all. it is not about the religion. and we've set this thousands of times. it is about these peoples extremist sentiments. they came to the states. they been given -- the younger brother is a citizen of the united states. just look how far they have gone. of course, they're not the -- still politicians have gone as far as, say, suggest the surviving criminal be declared a pow. >> what are they, completely nuts? what kind of pow is the? want, they brought back the civil war between north and south? is just completed total yes. it's like they're talking out of god knows what. but i'm saying all of this not to do somebody of something. on only calling for us to use

this tragedy to come closer to each other and working against this common threat. and one of the most dangerous and important threat which is -- care. if we do bring our efforts together we will not take these budget i will not be suffering this kind of losses. >> coming up on c-span2, irish president michael higgins talked about the challenges facing the european union. after that, a live discussion of a new report on early childhood education with education secretary arne duncan. and health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius. then the first of a series of live panel discussions marking the 20th anniversary of the u.s. holocaust museum as european officials examine how the holocaust has influenced european identity. that's followed by a look at the lessons learned by the actions of people who defied not the ideology and stood in support of holocaust victims.

>> in a recent address to the european parliament, irish president michael higgins talked about the challenges facing the european union and board members about the loss of its credibility in the world. ireland currently holds the eu's six-month rotating presidency. this is a half hour. >> the president of ireland. [applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: ladies and gentlemen, i would invite you to please take your seats.

[speaking in native tongue] >> translator: ladies and gentlemen, it's a great honor for me to welcome the president of the republic of ireland, mr. higgins, it very well -- a very warm welcome to you to the european parliament. [applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: esteemed colleagues, mr. higgins will be addressing us today, but before i give them the floor, it's a particular pleasure for me to welcome on the public tribune the grand duke of luxembourg and his wife. a very warm welcome to them, too. [applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: i am equally delighted that next to them on

the public gallery seats we have mr. higgins his spouse, a very well known, too, in the european parliament. i would now like to give the podium to the president of ireland, mr. higgins. [speaking in native tongue] >> translator: presidents, members of european parliament, commissioner geoghegan quinn, i am delighted and i'd like to thank you all for the

opportunity to speak to this assembly today, where representatives of the citizens elected democratically and directly from the 27th, 728 member states, are present. >> commissioner geoghegan quinn, may i thank you for giving me the opportunity of addressing this assembly which brings together the democratically elected representatives of the citizens of the 27 member states, soon to be 28 of the european union. i dress you as president of ireland, and i even that is always been connected to matters european. i country that has always looked outward, people with a very strong connection with the cultures and learning of europe in all its diversity from ancient times. and a nation that has valued the

european vocation through every century into the president when ireland holds, for the seventh , the roting presidency the cocil ofinisten our 40th year of membership of the union. be it in our ancient celtic connections, and our continuous connection with european scholarship, or in our modern consistent support for european unity, we irish have been european inner consciousness and commitment. europe has always had an existence in the irish mind. in our own gaelic language the mythic stories of europe have always been present, and some of our modern plays recall the use that was made of the classical sources of greek and roman myths into gaelic edge schools that preceded the widespread use of the english language in ireland. the irish language that preceded english had been deeply

influenced i ancient european myths, particularly a great myths of c. and exile such as that of homer's odyssey. in the areas of literature, across the peoples of europe have had an old and enduring sense of respect for what is a cultural diversity frequently drawn from a shared sense of math. it was, however, in the tasks of the mind and the spirit that the irish sought to make the greatest contribution. thus it was that in july 1950 that then irish by mr., john a. costello, together with the irish foreign minister, nobel prize lloyd, and founding member of amnesty international, sean the bride, traveled to officially celebrate the 100 -- 1400 anniversary of the birth of one of the greatest irish and european saints and scholars,

columbanus. it was trained to do with st. paul and others established centuries of learning, manuscript illumination, monasteries and communities right across europe from the north of ireland were columbanus actually die. it is of the spirit of citizenship as it might be a european level, as might motivate europeans who want to give the two words, european and union, a sense of fulfillment. and human flourishing that i wish to speak up in this year that has been dedicated as european year of citizens. but one more word about that meeting in july 1950. no more than some meetings of the contemporary period, its real agenda was not as publicly indicated. it was declared to be ecclesiastical in purpose. after all, the papal to france,

-- about that meeting in jul july 1950. as i said no more than some meetings of the country prepared of which i will not speak, its real agenda was not as publicly -- it was declared the ecclesiastical and purpose after the papal nuncio to france at the time, monsignor, there to be pope john the xxiii. we know from the work of the two distinguished scholars, modernist, link list, philosopher and lexicographer, that the meeting was really organized so as to facilitate a meeting of robert schuman, foreign minister of france, with like-minded others from a number of european countries anxious to hear it and test his great idea for the coming together of the countries of europe. schuman, who was aware of ireland efforts, reach back to recall that early monastic

berggren asked to go and declared that columbanus should be the patron saint of all those who now seek to build a united europe. and that schuman meeting and the others which followed ed assisted, was responded to new and terrible events. but we should never forget, and that emphasize it today, that in the response at that meeting they recognize the immense value, and they drew on the rich scholarship of philosophy, moral instincts and the generous impulses of european thought as they sought not just to replace war with peace, but more importantly, to construct a vision of europe's people working together in an inclusive way. it was not just any abstract construction. it was a practical proposal

drawn from the head and memory and experience, propelled by the heart, and united, it united economy and ethics in its aspiration for a common shared a few. but yet the inspiration and the achievements of the founders of the european union, we inherit as legacy cannot be taken for granted. today, citizens in europe are threatened with an unconscious drift to disharmony, a loss of social cohesion, a recurrence of racism and an increasing deficit of democratic accountability in some decision-making of an economic and fiscal kind. these threatening clouds hang over a europe that a more hopeful times had chosen to base its and some, rather than anything contemporary, on friedrich schiller's poem, only

two joy, and its musical setting by ludwig van beethoven in his ninth symphony. and parliaments met a. parliament must continue to matter. centuries of effort had been invested by european citizens in securing the vote, for example. and extending the vote. and it is to parliament citizens look for accountability, for strategic alternatives. and if national parliaments, if the european parliament, were to lose the capacity to deliver a accountability, what else might it be found? is there an alternative that can meet the requirements of a deliberative democracy? i believe not, but i believe that parliaments moscow on the resources of experience, of inherited intellectual capacity, in all its diversity. and above all, from the best of contemporary intellectual work,

and it must do so in a pluralist way. i am conscious in this year of the european citizen that has parliamentarians, you are the elected component of the european union, elected by citizens from your diverse electorate's within the same few days. and i want to wish you well in all your deliberations together, and with other institutions of the union, and particularly in your dialog with your electorate, the citizens of europe. day, the citizens, place their trust in parliament when they vote, and they rightly have expectations of parliaments responding to their needs. are they much welcome the increasing influence in decision-making power that the european parliament has worn in relation, for example, to the multi--- it was a part of the harlot did not have when i visited here as minister and the

president of the culture of ministers in 1996. .. >> know the fact that european citizens are suffering, the consequences of actions and opinions about it such as rating agencies which, unlike parliament, are simply unaccountable. many of our citizens in europe

regard the response to the crisis in their lives as disseparate, sometimes delayed, not equal to the urgency of the task of not showing sufficient solidarity with them in their threatened or actual economic circumstances of today. they feel that in general terms the economic narrative of recent years has been driven by dry technical concerns. for example, by calculations that are abstract and not drawn from real problems such as unemployment. geared primarily by a consideration of the impact of such measures on speculative markets rather than driven by sufficient compassion and empathy with the predicament of european citizens who are, after all, together members of the union and for whom all of the resources of europe's

capacity -- political, social, economic and intellectual -- might have been drawn upon if it had been driven by the binding moral spirit of the union. in facing up to the challenges europe currently faces, particularly in relation to unemployment we cannot afford to place our singular, sole trust in a single hegemonic model to the exclusion of other models that might engage best our problems such as unemployment by uncritically accepting solely and exclusively a version of logistical economic theory whose assumptions are narrow and intellectually questionable and largely indifferent to social consequences in terms of their outcomes. rather than any discourse that might define the european union

as simply an economic space of contestation between the strong and the weak, our citizens yearn for the language of solidarity, a commitment to cohesion for a generous, inclusive rhetoric that is appropriate to an evolving political union, a union anxious to reach a future of peace, prosperity, inclusion, intergenerational justice in a sustainable way. and this is a serious challenge. not least because if we were to fail, we run the risk of an economic crisis leading to a crisis of legitimacy for the union, a union that after all in its founding treaty is founded on values; values such as a respect for personal dignity, freedom, democracy, quality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. and the union grows its legitimacy from the support of

its citizens. that connection with the citizens, their belief that the european union is of them and for them is fundamental. without it we are adrift, and citizens need an appeal to their heart as well as their reason. they need reassurances now that this union will keep faith with its founding treaties. itit has been many years since t was declared europe needs a soul, but it remains just as true. we must not forget we are the inher to haves of a profoundly important set of european values, greek democracy, the reformation, the enlightenment, the great democratic revolution that began in france. europe is, therefore, more than an economic space of contestation in which our citizens are invited or required to deliver up their lives in the

service of an abstract model of economy and society whose core assumptions they assume not to question are put to the democratic test in elections. as we face into the future, we need to draw strength from those founding values of the union, values that include cohesion and solidarity among member states, among the citizens of our union and between the european union and the the rest of the world. we need to work together to apply ourselves to building a better future together. as jack delore also said of this present crisis, europe does not just need firefighters, it needs architects too. and the first and urgent test must be to get europe back to sustainable and fulfilling employment and a return to real growth. there is nothing more close i have to society -- corrosive to society and more crushing to the

person than epidemic unemployment particularly among the young. with 26 million people across the union without work, 7 million young people, 115 million people in our union are at risk of poverty and social exclusion. we simply cannot allow this to continue. and irish precedences have always drawn practically from the spirit of the founding treaties. and the current irish administration has, therefore, put it at the top of its agenda. and the european council has agreed that addressing unemployment is the most important social challenge we face. at last month's social summit, mr. president, rightly you warned of the repercussions of the spread of unemployment and poverty across the union. so, therefore, i commend the agreement reached in the european council in february on the youth employment initiative and the subsequent proposals

from the commission to make it operational by the start of next year. the matter is urgent, and i also very much welcome the agreement reached in the council on the youth guarantee that will insure all young people under the age of 25 a good quality of employment, apprenticeship or training within four months of being unemployed which we need to do more. we need to insure that women participate in the workplace as equals, that older workers are not left on the sidelines and that the long-term unemployed are fully equipped to find their way back into today's workplace. but we must insure that for all these european citizens that a loss of employment does not lead to exclusion from participation particularly in the cultureal pace of one's own community. and is we need also to consider how to encourage people to create jobs. we need to value and support our small and medium business

enterprise, the life blood of so many communities. we need to sustain those who want to create opportunity for themselves and for others. we need to encourage creativity, innovationing, entrepreneurship. a generous vision of europe is, of course, not one that looks solely inwards. the european model has inspired many others on their journey to peace and democratic institutions. and while light may not have dabbled so brightly in recent years, europe can be a beacon of hope and encouragement for many less fortunate people in the world. it can give a lead by speaking with a unified voice on climate change, recognizing that those least contributing to our global problem are paying the highest price even as i speak and we meet today. europe already is, of course, the largest donor in the fight against hunger and in the efforts of scaling up nutrition. and that is something europe can build on. so how do -- how the european

union engages with the rest of the world is a major test of its credibility. will the union allow its current economic difficulties to undermine its commitment on the great global challenges of our day? hunger, poverty, human rights, climate justice. i hope not. will we reaffirm, rather, the generous idealism at the heart of the european vision by rededicating ourselves to tackling these problems with our partners? i hope we do. for, indeed, measures that replace the millennium development goals, how they respect diversity, recognize different paths to development, have human rights at their center will be a major test not only for europe, but for the global community. i believe that a european union that has the courage to face its past including its darker periods of empire with honesty

and its future with a commitment to values that are inclusive of all humanity, with the discourse that respects diversity has a profound contribution to make not only to its own citizens in europe, but to the global commitment. community. it can give create a form of ethical globalization that recognizes intergenerational responsibilities. such an integrated discourse as much as is allowed for this to happen i say, frankly, is missing just now. the prevailing narrative seems to be -- [applause] the prevailing narrative seems to be packed intellectually in a structure of port which it appears unable to challenge for which it seems unable or at times even unwilling to escape or exit.

in the absence of considering, however, other possible models or approaches, we are in danger now of drifting into unsustaining a kind of moral and intellectual impetus. and, yes, we have available to us, i repeat again, a rich legacy of intellectual, radical work upon which to draw from the past and in the contemporary world. there are in our shared intellectual heritage upon which we -- so much which we could draw. and let us remember that in the energetic pursuit of new thought that, for example, characterized the european enlightenment, its cells formed from the part of other ancient enlightenments, there are some powerful examples of dissident and radical talk. let us never forget the singular example given by those dissident thinkers in their time, they in

their times identified the flow in the enlightenment thinking that supported empire with its insatiable drive. and they courageously challenged it through their books, pamphlets and public expression. the logical strand of economics which today holds sway and stands as a single, hegemonic model of economic theory not only in europe is the flaw of our times. this strand of neoclassical economics -- [applause] this strand of neoclassical economics is, of course, useful for limited and defined tasks. it is insufficient, however, as an approach for our problems and our future. we need new, substantive, pluralist political economic models. and an e chance pa story discourse to deliver them, and i suggest that this is possible. because the dominating model and

this method defines not only discourse, but policy options. there is an urgent need now for new models of connection between economy, society and policy. they are essential for genuine pluralist choices in policy, not to speak of democratic accountability and relevance to our contemporary problems. and if we are to address the current challenges as european parliamentarians, i encourage you to let these new models into the european discourse. give them space in the committee structure of your parliament and institutional structure of the union. but to achieve that discourse, the role of mix intellectuals -- public intellectuals is also a -- [inaudible] they are called upon, i suggest, to state unequivocally that the problems of europe are not simply technical and, secondly, not solely amenable to solution by technocratic measures at the

expense of democratic accountability. [applause] the suggestion that citizens and their representatives are not fiscally or economically literate enough to carry the decision making necessary for policies that impinge on their lives be it unemployment, housing, health, education or the environment has the most serious implications in legitimacy terms. it is an assumption that challenges democracy itself. a disemboldenned version of the economic space. if used as a tut for people -- as a substitute for people, societies or states loses its connection with history, contemporary challenges, and it lacks the moral connection with the ethics and solidarity we now need. it would evade rather than face our present challenges. a european union, if it's to be

respected, as a great project it is and can be must draw on the intellectual heritage and the intellectual imaginings and the existing talents and the capacity of the peoples of europe. it is a fully authentic union if it's characterized by solidarity. to conclude, if our european union and its prospects are not of this authentic character just now, it must be made so by changes in consciousness and commitment and through reasserting the idealism, the intellectual strength and the moral courage, too, that drove the founding fathers of the union. european member states are peoples with history, with current needs, with possibilities that are to be shared. if we were as an alternative simply to regard our people as dependent variables to the opinions of rating agencies,

agencies unaccountable to any demands and, indeed, found to be fallible on so many occasions, then instead of being citizens we would be reduced to the status of mere consumers, pawns in a speculative chess board of fiscal moves in a game derived -- [applause] in a game derived from assumptions that are weak, assumptions that are weak in a scholarly sense, untestable in an empirical sense and very frequently up declared. so to -- undeclared. so to ask that our decisions then be normative rather than being narrowly fiscally democratic is, i suggest, more than an integration of our intellectual capacities. it is to defend and deepen democracy. i readily acknowledge, i want to be very clear, i believe that if -- i believe very much in the

utility in so many areas of logistical economics. however, i believe that if its methods are elevated to being substituted, a substitute for the integrated multidisciplinary scholarship that we now need to address the varying context and contingencies of current challenges, such as sole reliance on a technocratic approach would be markedly insufficient. if we are to deliver the european union of peace and prosperity that the founders envisaged and that i believe the citizens of europe yearn for beyond the understandable fear of present circumstances, a strategy that draws on the research, scholarship and world views of all the social sciences and ethics and philosophy is required. president, members of parliament, commissioner, leaders of groups, from the flux of diverse histories from our current problems, from our fears

and our aspirations, i hope will emerge a response that constitutes a tapestry of many colors, of different strengths in its threads and in its design, evocative of what memory has made endure and the human spirit has invested with hope. whether it is made out of wondrous reason or woven with a prayer will not matter in the end. what matters is that it be the work of us all, working together in cooperation, cosmopolitan and open to the world, caring for it in an intergenerationally responsible way. and embracing all our people as equal citizens. so let us, the citizens of the european union who want to make a real union together to move off the dark into -- out of the dark into the light and achieve something indeed worthy of shiller's poem originally called

"ode to freedom, go to it." thank you. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] displt thank you very much, indeed, president higgins. for your wonderful speech. i don't know, president, whether every member of the house agrees

with every tiny detail of what you said. i doubt that they did. but i listened with enthusiasm. perhaps not everybody was equally enthusiastic in this country, but there's one thing that i can assure you of, ireland is a lucky country to have such a wonderful head of state who's made such a wonderful speech. you've given us encouragement, thank you. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> and we are live this morning

as the national institute for early education research releases its annual report measuring early childhood education funding and quality. the findings show that funding cuts at the state level resulted in a ten-year low point in support for early childhood education. the report also indicating that state funding for the 2011-2012 school year decreased by $500 million. some of the speakers include secretary of education secretary arne duncan and the institute's director, steven barnett. we expect it to get under way in just a moment, national coverage from the national press club here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> oncer again, we're live at the national press club here in washington, d.c. awaiting remarks from education secretary arne duncan and health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius among others. the national institute for early education research is releasing its annual report measuring early childhood education funding and quality. this will get under way if just a moment live here on c-span2. a quick reminder about some of our other programming on the c-span networks. the holocaust museum here in washington this morning marking its 20th anniversary. coming up at noon, the tart of several -- the start of several panel discussions. this morning on c-span remarks from former president hillary bl clinton and ellie weasel. also we got comments from dr. barry black speaking at the heritage foundation, that'll be live on c-span, again, at noon eastern. later, defense secretary chuck hagel and his japanese

counterpart meeting with reporters today. we'll have that joint news conference live beginning at 1:55 eastern, that will also be on c-span. and president obama expected to announce his choice to become the next transportation secretary today. news reports indicating that the president will pick charlotte, north carolina, mayor anthony fox. that announcement expected at about 2:10 p.m. eastern. live coverage on our companion network, c-span3. and finally later today, a debate between candidates representing south carolina's 1st district in the u.s. house, republican mark sanford up against democrat elizabeth colbert bush. that's live at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning, everyone. we are here on this beautiful morning the discuss the findings of the 2012 state of preschool yearbook. it is a very important publication in that this is an extensive survey funded to look into funding of preschools across the nation. conducted every year since 2002, over ten years ago, the survey provides a decade that provides information on any changes within every state on policy, funding, enrollment and, also, detailed descriptions of the most recently implemented in every state. it is widely regarded, and it is definitely a reference that we

all look to across the nation. my name is celia ayala, and i am going to be moderating this morning's event. i am the ceo of a nonprofit by the name of laup. los angeles universal preschool. i've been in education for 30 years as a junior high school teacher, third grade, kindergarten, a school principal and assistant superintendent, so i've had the opportunity to see so many programs, really wonderful ones and some not so wonderful. today's panel is going to be addressing the state of preschool, and i am privileged and honored to have our secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius, this morning, our secretary of education, arne duncan. we have our gentleman to my right is the aft president -- i'm sorry, president of the

vanguard -- sorry -- [laughter] zack brennan. and the president of aft, randi weingarten. and is to give us the overview of what the study indicates in this particular year a dear friend and champion for preschoolers across the nation, steven barnett. [applause] >> thank you, celia. good morning. state of preschool in the america is a state of emergency devastated by the great recessioning and by the failure -- recession and by the failure of our leaders to prioritize early educational opportunity. 2012 was a year of firsts, most of them bad. adjusted for inflation, state pre-k funding fell $548 million. adjusted for inflation, that

amounts to fearly $450 -- to nearly $450 per child. real spending per child is now at its lowest level since we began the survey of 2002, a thousand dollars below the level of a decade ago. this bad news was widespread, state pre-k for child declined in 47 states that have programs. in 13 states spending fell by only 12 states and the district more than 10%. of columbia increased spending per child in 2012. the state of preschool yearbook also tracks enrollment and quality standards. for the first time, we saw no increase in access to state-funded pre-k. in the 2011-'12 year, 28% of 4-year-olds and just 4% of 3-year-olds enrolled in state pre-k, the same as in the previous year. sixteen states had enrollment declines, seven had no growth. only 17 states, less than half,

and washington, d.c. increased enrollment. let's look at a state-by-state map where the colors, darkness of the color tells you about opportunity to enroll in preschool. as you can see in america today, access to quality pre-k largely depends on where a child lives. in oklahoma or west virginia, school essentially begins at 4. other states have made progress towards serving our children or for some all low-income children, yet ten states -- those that are white on that chart -- provided no pre-k at all. of course, state-funded pre-k's not the only option for preschool. head start and special education bring our totals in public programs to 40% for 4-year-olds and 15% for 3-year-olds. in addition, some children attend private preschools and family daycare homes. but these are rarely high

quality and too often they're poor quality. and quality is also important for public programs. access only matters if pre-k is good enough to enhance children's learning and development. that's why the national institute for early education research compares each state's policies against ten benchmarks for quality standards. a perfect 10 was achieved by alabama, alaska, north carolina and rhode island. close on their heels were louisiana, kentucky, new jersey and tennessee. also good news, three programs actually improved against these benchmarks in 2012. however, seven programs lost ground including five that discontinued regular site visits to monitor program quality. state capacity to monitor quality is essential to insure that state pre-k produces results even when states have

high standards. and this brings us back to the beginning. the 2012 cutbacks in quality standards were directly related to the shortfalls in state funding. only 15 states and the district of columbia could be verified as providing sufficient funds to meet all of these ten benchmarks for quality standards. we estimate as many as eight of ten children in state pre-k programs attend programs where funding is inadequate to provide a quality education. now, despite all this dismal news for 2012, we do see signs that a turn around is possible. just this month mississippi became the latest state to sign pre-k into law. there are now only nine states that provide no public program. several governors have proposed major new commitments. governor snyder of michigan and

patrick of massachusetts proposed large, multiyear funding increases demonstrating that public pre-k is not a partisan issue. other states need to step up not just to repair recent damage, but to significantly expand preschool, raise standards and build state capacity to monitor and insure quality. recognizing the need for states to do just this, the president has proposed a federal/state partnership to provide high quality preschool to every american child. the cost of this giant step for young children is small, one-quarter of 1% of all government spending, not much more than a rounding r record in the federal budget. -- error in the federal budget. and the benefits would far cheed the costs. good preschool education provides children with stronger foundations for lifelong success. reducing school failure, raising test scores, increasing educational attainment and all of those things provide a bundle

of benefits for the taxpayer. so for complete details of our report and the recommendations that follow, please go to our web site, nieer.org. that concludes my brief summary of the results. and it's now my pleasure and honor to introduce the first of our panelists who will provide a response. secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius, led an -- has led ambitious efforts to improve america's health anden hasn't the delivery of human -- and enhance the delivery of services to some of the nation's most vulnerable populations including young children. under her leadership hhs is partnering with the department of education to help schools improve and increase the quality of early education. madam secretary. [applause]

>> good morning, even, and thank you, steve, for that nice introduction. but more importantly, for your leadership on behalf of young children across the country. i'm delighted to have a chance to join the advocates and colleagues on the stage today, and my good partner and friend, arne duncan, who is speaking out for children each and every day in his job. now, as steve has already pointed out, this year's report has some pretty grim news. but i think it also highlights the urgency of the historic investment in early education that the president called for in his state of the union. we have a lot of evidence, and here's what the evidence shows. we know that high quality early education has a huge payoff down the road not just in improved academic outcomes which are critical, but also in improved productivity and low or costs --

lower costs in public assistance programs and the criminal justice system. now, i entered public life when my children were 2 and 5, so i lived in early education space, and i'm a former governor. and i know what tough budgets mean for states. but i also know that states make choices about where to allocate those scarce resources, and i'm hopeful that this new partnership opportunity will, again, help states reorganize their budget priorities. the investments that have huge payoffs in the future are the ones that need to be looked at first in tough budget times. it should be the last place we cut money, not the first. that said, even if states step up and do more -- and i believe they can and they should -- there certainly is a role for the federal government to help support these investments in our nation's children. and i'll tell you, as a former governor i would have loved to have had an active funding

partner at the federal level during those years. and that's what president obama is talking about. that's why we'll continue to work with congress to pursue the proposal the president put forward in his budget, a proposal that once again is fully paid for. today's report emphasizes that when it comes to early education, quality does matter. and that quality means more than just learning numbers and the abcs. it means insuring kids get the nutrition and preventive care they need to stay healthy, building social and emotional skills, engaging parents to headache -- to make sure they're nurturing their children's development. over the last four years, we've pursued an historic effort to raise the bar on quality in early education, and we've had unprecedented and incredible coordination and collaboration with the department of education. that includes the race to the top early learning challenge,

and it also includes a range of efforts in the head start program including sharing best practices on training and curriculum and making sure that funding competition goes to the strongest centers. so as in this report -- as this report shows, we have more work to do in that area, too, but we have come a long way in the last decade. and we're committed to doing what we cannot just to expand access to early education programs, but to make sure those programs adhere to the highest quality standards. again, i want to thank you for being here, i want to thank you for your commitment to the children of america, and i'd like to turn it over now to secretary duncan who's been a close ally, a partner and a terrific advocate for the youngest children in america. secretary duncan. [applause]

>> first, i just want to thank kathleen. she and her team at hhs have been just amazing partners, and folks know historically there was very little positive interaction, i think, between the department of education and hhs. everyone stayed in their silos, and i think we're doing two, three, sometimes four events a week together, and with the head start community on friday. kathleen, i just want to thank you for your extraordinary partnership. and if we can in a real way demonstrate at a federal level we can work together, then at the state and local level we hope folks will start to partner and, again, 2 and 3 and 4-year-olds just want access to high quality. we all have to come together in a different way, and your leadership's been fantastic. i also want to thank steve for every single year being honest, being clear, being objective, holding all of us accountable. good news, bad news, it's the truth. i just really appreciate you staying with us for the long haul. i think this is maybe the third year in a row that we have talked about this report

together, and i want to continue to do this for many years to come. steve summarized the news here isn't as good, ant as positive as -- isn't as positive as we would like it to be. total school funding for preschool last year by more than half a billion dollars. the number of high quality programs across the country actually declined. and roughly a third of states, 16 states, actually reduced enrollment in state preschool programs last year. obviously, that's no way to create a world class education system. and it's no way to put our students on a path for college and career readiness in a knowledge-based, global economic economy. to close achievement gaps, we must close what i call opportunity gaps. states, with federal support, must do so much more to level the playing field for our babies. they have to do much more to provide equal opportunities for children, particularly disadvantaged children, to begin

kindergarten, to start school at the same starting line. if ever there was a report that makes the case for the need for president obama's preschool for all proposal, this report is it. the truth is that the urgent need for greater access to high quality preschool for children from low and moderate income families is, frankly, no longer in the dispute. nationwide fewer than 3 in 10 4-year-olds today, less than 30%, are enrolled in the high quality preschool programs. and we know that on average children from low income families start kindergarten, they begin school 12-14 months behind their peers in language development and pre-reading skills. that is morally and educationally unacceptable. and from a long-term economic competitiveness standpoint, it is just plain dumb. the u.s. badly lags behind other nations in supporting early learning. out of 29 industrial nations,

the u.s. devotes less public spending to early learning as a percentage of gdp than 24 of of the countries. and the united states is 28th among oecd nations in our enrollment of 4-year-olds in early learning. as all of us here know, that is no badge of honor. much of the recent cutbacks in state preschool programs were caused by the delayed impact of the recession on state budgets. and i'm also very concerned that those budget cuts will get even worse under sequestration, and we've seen head start programs and others actually ending their school year early this year due to sequester. as i've said many times before, budgets are never just numbers. they reveal our values, and they reveal our value choices. and you do not see high-performing competitors defunding education and innovation via sequestration. other nations, our international competitors, they keep their eye on the prize and don't let

dysfunctional politics create a manmade mess. they want to invest in education. they want to accelerate their progress, not put the brakes on. for example, south korea which today were 14th in the world of college graduation rates, i think south korea's number one. south korea's investment in education as a percentage of gdp increased by nearly a third from the year 2000 to 2009. and, again, thai already very, very -- they're already very, very successful, while our investment increased by only 6%. in fact, education spending as a percentage of gdp rose at more than twice the u.s. rate and other countries over the past decade. now in the era of tight budgets and constrained resources, it is absolutely right, and we should ask ourselves what is the smartest use of our education dollars. what's the best way to invest? and the answer, i believe, is that high quality early learning is the best educational investment that we can make in our children, in our communities and, ultimately, in our country.

it is the best bang for our education album. nobel prize-winning economist james heckman's analysis of rigorous longitudinal data from the perry preschool project found a return of $7 for every $1 of public investment in high quality preschool programs. the long-term benefits came not just from improved academic performance, but also from gaining hugely important noncognitive skills like the ability to self-regulate. and the longitudinal study of chicago's child/parent centers also found an roi of 7 to 1. our high performing international competitors, they know about roi, and they know about the big return on investment in high quality early learning. in oecd countries, 15-year-olds who had attended some preschool were more than a year ahead of their peers in reading compared to students who had not attended preschool. now, one piece of good news in

steve's report is that over the long term over the last decade, states have moved significantly, to significantly expand preschool programs and to elevate quality. and i'm convinced that is where the force of history and the force and power of the evidence about early learning are leading all of us. and i see many encouraging sign that is this year and next states will be expanding high quality preschool programs. 27 governors, democrats and republicans alike, referenced early learning in their state of the state addresses this year. many states including states led by gop governors like alabama and michigan are investing this year in quality and expanding coverage to more 4-year-olds. and last november voters in cities like san antonio and denver and st. paul, minnesota, all approved tax increases to support preschool programs in their local communities. so ultimately, i have great faith that our country, our states and our communities are

moving to building a better system of high quality early learning. history, the evidence and old-fashioned common sense are all on the side of president obama's proposal for investing in early education from birth through 5 and preschool for all. and now i'd like to turn it over to my friend randi weingarten. he's a longtime champion for high quality early childhood education and fundamentally understands how these early opportunities can have life-transforming impacts on our nation's young people. randi? [applause] >> thanks, mr. secretary. thanks, madam secretary. thanks, steve. um, i am proud that steve is a member of the aft. so i truly wish the news we are discussing or we have been discussing today was better, but

steve made pretty clear that the recession and the years after the recession had taken its bait bait -- its bite out of what many of us think is one of the most important and impactful investments in the children. now, why the aft? why are we here? well, it's not simply that we are deeply involved in early childhood education. we do represent, um, about 100,000 or so members who work directly in the field, and so we have closely filed the reports not just because steve and his team are members, but because they really do shine the light on what's going on in early childhood every single year. and we saw last year the warning, the report last year started showing the hit on preschool programs, and we said at that time that we thought

that we were starting to see that slip. and the report released today made it clear that there was a huge slip. that we were, that we all of a sudden for the first time have gone in the opposite direction of where we need to go. and i think the two secretaries have made it clear through their leadership not just today, but throughout the years why this, why we have to reverse this and why these investments are so essential to children's success and then, also, the success of our nation. i want to spend a little bit of time on something that neither of the secretaries really talked about which was how important the president's proposal is. they talked about how important the state intervention is, but the president's proposal is hugely important. as steve said, it is not just a little step in the right direction, it is a giant, giant,

giant footprint in the right direction. because what it does is it puts ece on the national agenda where it needs to be, it provides a new funding source. you can see i can't speak anymore. [laughter] it makes a commitment to provide affordable access to preschool for all 4-year-olds. i think as secretary sebelius said, it's an amazing state/national partnership that as a governor she sees as hugely important. it doesn't -- thank you -- ask for a trade-off for all the other important services and programs -- thank you so much -- for infants and toddlers, and it's really a down payment, as secretary duncan said, for the future. now, we have been a relentless advocate for expanding access to high quality early childhood education. and that's why we are so into doing everything we can to make

reity.esident's pposal a aft members work in early ed delivery settings. not just when i talk about the 100,000 people, it's not just in public education. we're in school-based programs, we're in head start programs, we're in public and private centers, and we're home base providers. and what we have focused on is two ways of actually trying to move quality and adequate resources. first, we're working with higher ed institutions to better design and support a career path for early childhood educators including the appropriate credentials and degrees as well as ongoing training and professional development for those already on the job. second, we obviously support standards that assure high quality education. third, we're working actively to design and implement programs that lead to a successful transition from preschool to the early grades, something that we

have to really do in terms of the integration of our services. the last thing i want to say is, because you've heard the clarion call, you've seen the evidence, we have to reverse it. the president has a plan to reverse it. there are state governors, republican and democrat alike, who are starting to see how important it is. but just here, let me just shout out a program that doesn't get shouted out very much. i want to end by recognizing two preschoolteachers from the district of columbia public schools who i believe are in the audience today, rachel haughton and -- [inaudible] who are from the peabody school. just stand up for a second. [applause] now, the reason i want to -- you know, look. i love teachers, i think they make an amazing difference in the lives of kids, and these two make an amazing difference in the lives of 3 and 4-year-olds. but for the first time we've analyzed the data from the district of columbia and

compared it with the 40 other states that have state-supported programs, and d.c. ranks number one for percentage of children served. and d.c. ranks number one for percentage of both 3-year-olds and 4-year-olds who are enrolled. and d.c. ranks number one for funding per child. and what is happening is that's the public commitment we need throughout the nation. thank you very much and thank you to kentucky ya henderson and tamara gray as well. so let me end by handing it off to jack brennan, because one aspect of early education that is often overlooked is that many of the nation's business leaders are really strong supporters of quality preschool programs. they know that early learning puts our children on a path to becoming the well-prepared work force that they really need, and jack is going to speak to it now. jack is the chairman emeritus of the vanguard group. he joined vanguard in '82 and served as chairman from 1996 to 2009 and ceo from 1996 to 2008.

thank you very much, jack. [applause] >> thank you very much, randi. and the advantage of being last before the q q&a is everybody hs said everything except a couple of things. so thank you, secretaries duncan and sebelius and steve, for this work. i mean, it's fantastic work. and i'm here to represent the beneficiaries of the investments that -- and one of the great things about the commentary that preceded me was describing this as investments, because that's the way business leaders view this. business leaders who are passionate about in this. and while the trend data that steve described is disturbing, the fact of the party is there's a good news corollary, i believe, which is at least if my career there's never been stronger momentum from the business community recognizing

this investment as one absolutely critical to our future and, two, very high return on investment. some of the data that secretary duncan mentioned from perry preschool and elsewhere is real. it is real, and i can tell you when i talk to other business leaders, when i go to harrisburg -- i'm from pennsylvania -- and talk to legislators, talk to the administration, they actually get the fact that these investments are necessary. that they're necessary and they're hard in some ways from a legislative standpoint because they pay off way down the road, and can that's several terms from now if you're an elected official. but the reality is the momentum that is in the business community today is very strong, and it's focused momentum. and i think it's the most important message i can leave with you. it's focused on quality. again, think about the commentary of the people who preceded me on panel.

it's about quality. it's focused on coverage and reach, the number of our children who are affected by this, and then very importantly and this is one of the things i find most gratifying in all of my efforts in this area, it's focused on the most disadvantaged in our society. it's what the president's proposal goes after, it's what proposals at some of the states goes after, is leveling the playing field. and the business community sees that we will not be competitive on a global basis. again, secretary duncan mentioned some of the investments being made in korea and elsewhere. if we don't have a steady pipeline, a full pipeline full of children and then adults who are ready to learn and then ready to compete on a global basis. it's actually a pretty simple argument to get people in the business community engaged and committed to early childhood

education. the fact of the matter is the returns are very high, and business leaders -- although sometimes get being criticized for worrying about quarterly earnings, can actually look forward and see as generations move through their organizations, we need to have a steady flow of able and globally-competitive young people join our organizations. we simply will not be successful if we do not. and that is the message that you're hearing again and again and again. and it's op-eds in "the new york times" by prominent business leaders. it's the ground war of lobbying in state capitols. i'm fortunate to be on something called the pennsylvania early learning investment commission, which is made up of about 80 business leaders from some of the most prominent organizations in pennsylvania who tell our elected officials we need these investments if our cities, our

counties, our commonwealth -- fehr mind our country -- never mind our country, are going to be competitive on a global basis. it is why the corollary to the not-so-good momentum in steve's report is very strong momentum in the business community, and you'll see more and more of this over the next several months as some things that are underway become more prominent. i think it is a very good news story, but it's one in which we have to work daily and weekly and monthly to keep prominent, because these are challenging investments. so i leave you with that message, that the business community is fully committed and the most aggressive business leaders are fully committed to the idea that quality, coverage and helping those most in need is the kind of investment we cannot afford to avoid and that we will be so glad we have made when those returns come in moving forward.

i'll stop there, turn it back to celia for the q&a. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much, jack. i'm also going to make a couple of points. having been a practitioner in the field -- and that's what we do every day. and for us at laup and in california the president's plan couldn't come at a better time. it begins to address the issues that surfaced in the report. and it is about access and quality. and it is about insuring that our teachers, that the resources, that the support for making things happen for these very young children and their future and our future -- because, ultimately, they will end up in the work force, that it's what we're all about. los angeles universal preschool serves currently 11,000 children

with 325 sites throughout la. county. it's big. and we do have a mixed model, for-profit, nonprofit, private, public. and we rate our programs. so we have a quality rating and improvement system. and we differentiate how much the preschools get based op their star. -- on their star. and the big issues are, i mentioned in the plan, who is teaching our children? are they prepared? is there continuous professional growth for them? is there on-site support through a coaching model? do they have the necessary resources to implement at every site? and whether they're in a nonprofit, for-profit, public, private or if a home-based -- or in a home-based that has become a quality provider for children in the various communities of l.a. county, are they being supported to insure that their children when they are entering

kinder, the children are ready to thrive? as a kindergarten teacher, you know the children are ready or not. when they get to third grade, they didn't just stop or not learn to read by third grade. what happened in second? what happened in first? what happened in the kinder? our achievement gap, and i can tell you a lot about that right now, our achievement gap for our children starts in kindergarten. so we know that providing the funding is not just enough. it is about that ongoing support that our teachers need. it is that ongoing communication with the parent who many times have two jobs to make ends meet, to make means -- to make money so that they can support their children. but it is about how do i as a parent continue to support my child's growth when they come home? parental engagement is critical, especially in the diversity of the communities that we serve

across this wonderful country of ours. but monitoring is critical. monitoring and ongoing support. because we as teachers get so busy, and we have so many needs we have to meet that monitoring with assistance and coaching and support cannot only make our classrooms better, but our children have better outcomes. as a result, we are changing the landscape. we are working with community colleges and universities to insure that everyone that works with zero to five children have also a transition in articulation system for them. that we do have standards. that we do have nutritional and fitness as part of what children are exposed to in our preschools. so we're working on those ten benchmarks that are a beginning because we could do so much more. but we need to work on this together, and i truly believe that a way to do this is through this new plan that has been

presented. for us it's a dream come true because we've been doing this work, but we need ongoing support and partnerships from this great part of the country, but to every single state regardless of where the children live, regardless of their zip code, regardless of their racial background. every child deserves this, because it is the beginning of their education. a lot more needs to be done, and we all know now that by 2018 -- that's only five years from now -- 63% of the job openings will require a higher education degree. and higher education starts in preschool. so we're going to ask some questions of our illustrious panel. and i'd like to ask, mr. brennan, why do you believe the state of preschool so important to the business

partners and your business? >> well, the data makes it very clear that if children get to school ready to learn, they will develop the skills we need 20 years later. so it sounds selfish. it's not intended to be, but, you know, we package the skills that we think are important. cognitive and character skills, and it's the ability to work in team, it's an ability, an anxiousness to learn. it's math, it's communications. but when you look at any of the data, if kids start out behind, they stay behind. if they go to high quality pre-k, they get to school ready to learn, and that puts them on a trajectory, frankly, to be able to allow us to remain competitive. it's a very simple formula. the data don't lie. >> thank you. ms. weingarten, why do you believe the united states has this problem of inadequate

investment in the early quality education? [laughter] >> so i'm still kind of reading yesterday's new york times about -- >> [inaudible] >> sorry. yesterday's new york times story about the wealth gap amongst races widened since the recession. i think what has happened is that we don't, as much as we say that it's important, we don't, we don't actually do what we need to do to care about other people's children. and you see that in terms of austerity. it's part of the reason why it is so great to have a business person on this panel who's starting to make the case about how important it is to nation building to care about all of god's children in the united states of america. but, so we know that this is important, and we have the evidence. but yet in austerity budgets

when there are choices that have been done, kids have gotten the short end of the stick. even right now in terms of sequester, and i'm really glad as someone who takes planes all the time that, you know, that that was fixed. but we still have a situation where 70,000 children are losing their head start spots under sequester. so i think that there's this issue about priorities, and i'm glad that we're talking about this as investment, and that's why i'm so glad that the president has put it out there in a really powerful way, a public and private state partnership. but the other piece is this, that everything can't be about test fixation. and what i've seen, frankly, in school districts is that when there's a choice between putting a teacher in third grade or test coordinator in third grade because that's when the

accountability system starts versus actually trying to focus on early childhood, the accountability system has driven folks to actually put that marginal resource in the higher grades, not in the creation of more and more and more early childhood programs. so that's why the mid course correction is desperately needed based upon the facts, based upon the data. >> thank you. so we have to turn this around. so, secretary duncan, what can we do to help you turn the around in your position at the federal level? >> i think this has to be a national movement. and to see the business community, to see union leaders, parents need to speak up, faith-based institutions, nonprofit partners, folks like yourself, if we're all working on this together, it'll happen. i think a big reason why it

hasn't happened historically, a couple things, as jack said, i think too many politicians are wired to think short term, and this is the ultimate long-term play. and let's just be really honest, 2-year-olds, 3-year-olds, 4-year-olds, they don't vote, they don't have pacs, they don't have lobbyists, and too often that's where the power goes. but if this is a nationwide movement led from the grassroots to some of our most powerful ceos, i think we have a chance to fundamentally change the course of our country. of and just to be clear, this is a $75 billion proposal. this dwarfs anything else that we've ever done. it's a ten-year commitment. it's not a short-term thing. and as we think about a time-limited, you know, we'll be done here, kathleen and i will be leaving three years, nine months whatever it is with the president. this is arguably one of the most important gifts we can leave the country. so the stakes here, i think, are extraordinarily high. >> thank you so much. secretary sebelius, i know that

in your work in health and human services there's some elements that address health issues in this report. what was the information that you found most compelling and, now, what can we do to help you? >> well, i would echo everything that arne just said about the need to make this a national movement. um, i think that there's still -- there still needs to be great understanding that what the president has put on the table is really a birth-5 proposal recognizing that you can't start at 4-year-olds. we really need to start at birth. so there will be an enhancement of home visiting which we know is an evidence-based strategy that helps parents be good parents from the outset, helps the first and best teacher a child will ever have learn important skills. it moves into then early head start and child care where a lot

of parents choose to have their children as they go to work and make sure that those are quality-based programs but also with curriculum and social and emotional skills. i think, you know, one of the great things about this collaboration with the department of education and hhs -- and i would be remiss if i didn't give a shout out to our great deputy assistant secretary linda smith who's here who does spectacular job in early childhood and also recognize one of the gurus who started this effort, joan lombardi, who is also here -- but we know that if a child has numbers down and can read and can't sit in a chair, they're not going to do very well in school. if they sit in a classroom and can't see the blackboard and can't hear the teacherrer, they're not going to do very well. be their teach -- if their teeth hurt so badly or they haven't had breakfast that morning,

they're not going to do well in school. curriculum is extremely important, but also health and wellness and nutrition and social and emotional skills are incredibly important. and working with parents is incredibly important. so i think that combination is huge. and i would be with remiss if i didn't also recognize that the funding source for this, taxing tobacco products and particularly a number of the new tobacco products that are aimed at children, could not be a better way to fund this initiative. what we know is there's still a thousand kids under the age of 18 who become lifetime smokers each and every day. there are 4,000 under 18-year-olds in this country who try their first cigarette or first tobacco product. young smokers are very price sensitive. so raising money is critical, not adding to the deficit is create cag, but doing --

critical, but doing it in a way that will promote better health, better wellness along the way can and educating our youngest children could not be a better situation. >> thank you. now i'd like to take some questions from the press if anybody has the card for me. great. yes. i know we are short on time, but we'd like to, um -- the question reads: as congress begins the appropriation process, will you be visiting this report to push them to include, i'm sorry, to include additional funding for early education? and given the price tag of the president's pre-k proposal and much of it weighing under tobacco tax, how realistic is it

that congress will be able to pass meaningful legislation to fund the proposal? >> we have some hard work to do, and it's so secret congress has been pretty dysfunctional on a lot of issues. but, again, i don't know how many opportunities they have to invest in something where they get 7 to 1 return over the long haul. i think in your business you'd be doing pretty well at 7 to 1. >> thank you very much. [laughter] >> and so i just think, again, we need everybody rallying behind this. but when and if congress wants to start to work together and want to work in a bipartisan way and want to work in the long-term best interests of our country, there's no better place to start. there's no better place to start. and, again, they're hearing from everybody, from every sector, left, right, in the middle, folks on the ground, folks in the corporate suites, if they're hearing from the entire country that this is an important investment, i'm also hopeful we can break through on this issue. >> and i would say one of the features of the report that

should not be overlooked, um, you know, there was a, certainly, a lack of resources during this last budget year. but states have been working on this effort for a very long time. states are way ahead of the federal government. states have made investments at difficult times, and as arne said, you know, it's republican states and democratic states. this is not a partisan issue. this is one issue that has gained bipartisan support at the political level and huge business support throughout the country. so if congress wants a recipe for working together, for finding common ground, for moving forward an initiative that doesn't add to the deficit, has health benefits, i mean, the side benefit is also if you raise the tobacco tax, health costs go down. good news. so this is an area where i think hearing from constituents and, again, they're not lobbyists, 4-year-olds are not at the

table, they don't have a big funding suite on k street, they don't often have, um, you know, pacs. but having the voices of the parents and advocates and business community saying we cannot afford not to do this, this is an investment we must make for the future of this country, um, that's a pretty powerful message, and i think that's what can move congress along. the secretary and i are going to have to leave, but we're going to leave you with the experts who can talk about this further. thank you. >> there was another question in terms of, um, defining quality. and, obviously, the report has ten elements that they get graded on. however, in the president's proposal it is mentioned in terms of the the teachers who are they, their background, the student-teacher ratio, the environment, interrible and external -- internal and external in terms of considering health, safety nutrition, the

parental engagement and, obviously, what happens in the teaching and learning aspect. before i turn it over to steve for closing remarks, i want to say to the spanish media -- [speaking spanish] .. >> we see them in terms of national data. i want to say two things that put a human face on this based on two letters.

one was a letter i read from a family home day care provider writing to ask what can she do because at the end of the day, the children start to pressure her for a snack, knowing their parents are going to be right there, and she's not going to deny them when their parents show up, but she really can't afford to provide them with this snack. we've had this discussion about what will congress and the nation do? way do other countries do? south korea school now begins at throw, and the united states of america can't afford to provide snacks for 4-year-olds. i don't believe that's our country. i don't believe that's who we are. if we really thought about how we're doing, that that's how our elected officials are going to

set their priorities. the sec letter i got from was a girl in florida writing to find out where could her little brother go to preschool because when she started school, she didn't speak english, and she had a horrible time, and she doesn't want that to happen to her little brother. well, i don't think most americans want that to happen to her little brother either. secretary duncan talked about we need a preschool movement in this country. i would agree. thank you very much for being here. thank you to our panelists. [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] if you missed this, go to c-span.org. more live coverage today, the holocaust museum in washington is marking its 20th anniversary this week. join us at noon for the start of several panel discussions including how the events of the second world war affected european identity. over on c-span today, remarks from the senate chaplain, dr. barry ack, speaking at the heritage foundation live at noon eastern. later, the defense secretary chuck hagle and japanese counterpart meet with reporters. that joint news conference for you live at 1:55 p.m. eastern also on c-span. president obama is expected to

nominate anthony fox for transportation secretary. that's expected at 2:10 p.m. eastern, and we'll have that live for you on c-span3. later today, a debate between the candidates to represent south carolina's first district in the house. republican mark sanford up against elizabeth colbert bush live at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> the bipartisan policy center had a national conversation about ending partisanship in politics and government. now a discussion about the future of public service including three former governors. this is an hour. >> just a really stellar panel ists for nose who want to serve in government, give back in a way, and what sort of institutions we create looking forward. i, too, have a couple of duties to do her. we'll ensure the online audience gets going with a poll question we have, we'll put it up on the screen is, would you consider thfure? for political office in

that's a yes-or-no question. we'll be during the sessions, as earlier sessions, recording the results on the screen here, and the whole forum is live streamed op the bipartisan policy website which is bipartisanpolicy.org, or tweet us using the hash tag "engage usa," and later in the session, we'll read the twit ire comments and questions, some are already coming in, and we'll take questions from the audience for the final part of the session. i'll introduce the panelists, and then well geat to -- get to the questions. to the left is mark, president of hope williams colleges, head of the peace corp in the clinton administration. chris marvin, founder of the organization that connects veterans to public service in a number of ways. governor of california, davis, down to another governor,

governor kempthorn who served in the cabinet in the senate, and tony hernandez, president and head of the california community foundation. governor jennifer, and ambassador bob puddle ambassador to the united king tom as well as head of the personnel in the reagan administration in whose library we sit as we speak. first question from twitter already, and that is a question from ariana from simi valley, right in the neighborhood, and it is, how can young people contribute to government and politics in an uncertain future? if i could just elaborate that question ask you more directly. you're the president of a college, and you see the younger generation today, and at least our sense is that when you ask people if they want to serve, give back, they say yes, and they say i want to do good

things, but they are more attracted to nonprofits and not as interested especially in running for office. is that your sense? what do you see in the younger generation? >> well, more broadly, it's a great question that was formulated, but i'm very on the mistig -- optimistic about the millennial generation, service engaged, arguably the greatest since the greatest generation. you see it with the numbers of interest in americorp and other streams of service. amidst the problems we have in which this addresses, i come to this with great optimism about the next generation. it's a generation bringing a sense of idealism like other generations, but a pragmatic sense of that, what they can do in their neighborhood and habitat or americorp or peace corp, ways to make a difference.

the political space in which we're discussing on the commission of political reform, i think, is not a trap. some of the very talented students, i think that can change, and i think there's pathways for this, but at the front end, i come to it with great appreciation for the my millennial generation, their commitment, service, and sense of civic engagement. the colleges can do more. the political space can do more, innovative program like what others created, all can add to the future, which my perspective is bright. >> antonio hernandez, we had a conversation yesterday, and you have younger people and people wanting to do good works and support good works. what's your sense of the young generation, where they are compared to what it was a generation ago? >> well, i agree with mark. this is a great deal of caring in the young generation.

they want to address the difficult issues that it's facing the world. they volunteer. they want to work in the non-for-profit sector, want to volunteer in a food bank, you know, working with youth, but politics has -- they turned out to politics. they don't see politics as a place where they can make a difference, where they are heard, and they don't see the current elected officials behaving in a way of roled modeling what good government is, and so they are turned off to politics, but they very much turn on to doing good. >> governor, you wanted to weigh in, can you give your perspective? >> yeah, i was actually so encouraged by the number of young people here in the room who raised their hands when asked the question, would you consider serving, and, n., the

poll number reflects that deserves attention. i would say this. we gottette rans up here, -- we got veterans up here, and they fight for us overseas, and that is hugely and wonderful and honorable thing, but we all have a duty as citizens to serve too. the duty is that you are here on this planet, on this country, to make it better than what you arrived. it's not for some, it's for all. the question is you heard the political challenges that you discussed today that not detour you from receiverring, -- serving, but that your deserve to serve so you can come and make changes necessary for the reforms that we all know need to

happen. i teach at berkeley in the graduate schools of law enforcement public policy so perhaps my view on this is a little bit warped because i teach people who also want to serve. i'm encouraged by those even on the political side willing to raise hands and say, "send me," but my one piece of advice, though, is recognize in running it's not about you. it's not about you. it is about the changes you want to make in the world. if you run with that in mind, then it becomes -- your focus and your vision and clarity becomes much more easy for you to raise your hand, in fact, when you realize that it is not about you. go forth and change the world. >> knew we wouldn't have a shy panel. both governors i know want to jump in. governor?

>> john, between breaks, i enjoyed talking to the young folks here. the fact that as some of you said, this is not a field trip. you wanted to be here, and you started this morning with us, and you're still here. i mean, i think we ought to sign a note for you. [laughter] it's simi valley high school, royal high school, grace brethren and caneo valley high school? any other high schools? i mean, it's tremendous. [applause] yeah. john, if i could, a couple other specifics because here's my point. while we talk about running for public office, it's not for everybody, but i think there are so many examples of citizens that are flout sitting around waiting for the government to do something for them. they are doing significant things. there's a young man, andy mccracken, he was student body

president at american university. last year, he organized 125 incumbent university student body presidents. i was one of the speakers asked to address them. i didn't know what to expect, 125 college leaders, one of the most respectful, impressive group of people i've ever seen. the questions so insightful and respectful, i mean, i'm the one that went away invigorated. a brett gibson did a tour of duty in the middle east, comes back, goes to the harvard business school, is elected their class president, and implemented that there must now be public service before you graduate from the harvard business school. what did they do? i think they adopted a series of sixth grade classes throughout the region so you have harvard business school students in the classroom as role models. rye, former marine, started a

health clinic in africa. carolina for cubera, my word, they are young people. somehow, somebody didn't tell them they couldn't do it. they just got up and did it. that's what all you can do. that's the greatness of the spirit of america, and that's why i'm going to jump back, pardon me for reiterating, but i said this morning, that ad by budweiser that said name the horse, and the number one answer was hope, that's what this country's about is hope. i went to a joel olsteen gathering at yankee stadium, filled to capacity, every age, ethnicity, socioeconomic level, what was the common denominator? hope. there's nothing wrong with the citizens. i think we have to get the leadership to catch the thing called ho ad then deliver.

>> however, maybe could speak a second so those who didn't raise your hand this morning. i'm one of those. i didn't quite have the gumption or courage, whatever it was, to put my name on the ballot, but i've been fortunate to be one of the lucky people that have been able to serve in government, and i served as a noncareer or political aappointment -- appointee for ten years of my life. it enriched my life and met people i never thought possible. we have something unique in the political system, not true of many democracies, but we have a lot of noncareer io.tee positions. at the federal level, it's 3 # ,000 full-time and 18 part-time. it's the same in the local and state government. i would encourage you those, who maybe don't want to put your

name on the ballot, just get involved with a campaign, in some way, or serve in an appointee position. they are very, very important, and as i said in our federal government, it's 3,000 full-time political appointments. it seems small thinking of the 2.5 million to 3 million federal employees, but it's larger than the other western democracies, and i think in a country as big as ours, i'm an example, from the west coast, went to washington, back from washington, bring back as much as you can give. please think about serving in a politically appointed position, if you would. >> i'll follow that up with a question that you served in the officer of presidential personnel directing trying to fill all the positions, find people who want to serve in the federal government, and you're right, that's very different from many countries where most of the government is really career, that people who admire

president obama who take time from the private lives, their careers, and spend years serving their country, people who admired -- president bush did the same. how did you find these people? what were the challenges of you seeking out the right people for the complex jobs, bringing them to washington. what was it that you tried to do to get them? >> a quick cute story. when i first went to washington, interviewed for office of personal, someone working in the office said there's enough republicans within a mile of where we're sitting to fill up the government. i said, no, that's not true. well, it is true. there's a lot of people in washington who want to serve, and so we thought it was very important in presidential personal to -- personnel to go outside of washington so we had specialists, people come in from the professional search world who worked for us to go outside washington. we looked at people who worked in the campaign. there's always, after an election, a tremendous enthusiasm, and you get thousands of letters of people who want to serve, and then, of

course, there's, you know, as i mentioned, there's not a lot of positions because once they are filled, enthusiasm dies down so we went back into the computer and found people who sent letters at the beginning of the reagan administration, called them five years later, and we found outstanding people that way so there's many ways. we went to organizations that probably represented here, and said, do you have someone you're interested in serving? just one cute story. when senator baker was chief of staff, we looked for a position at tennessee valley authority, which was knot in very good shape, and, frankly, senator baker acceptability us -- sent us people serving, and with trepidation, i walked into the office, chief of staff, and he said, you know, we have a problem here at, and he said, yeah, tuttle, i know you're right. call the guy, head of the nashville paper to find you people, and sure enough, called this guy, a fellow running an

automobile plant in tennessee who turned out to be the one that president reagan selected to run the tva and turned it around, so with the huge country, there's lots of people, just tell people that you're interested in serving. it's very important. >> governor davis? >> first of all, i want to commend all the young people here, and i want to thank the ronald reagan library. i got to meet reagan in 1974. i don't care if you're a democrat, republican, independent, green party, aip, you had to like reagan. he was a good man, sunny disposition, liked all people, no mallace in his heart. i want politics back to that, no matter what your point of view, to be seen as a good person trying to do the right thing. we're thrilled that the reagan library is in california. i would encourage it, when i was growing up i was in the tom

daschle area, you know, great things, and spuk -- sputnik was over it, and if you want to be an engineer to combat the russian presence in the sky. great things happen in government. down in my level, i signed the first bill in america with great health care, a lot of good stuff, but my point is find a way to serve, even if it's not in government because today, with the adoption of rapidly evolving technology, there's all kinds of way to serve. nip who spent time in silicon valley, the technology center is just impressed with the attitude every person in the company google, apple, twitter,

facebook, go to work believing they are going to change the world, and guess what, sometimes they do. there's no question that the kind of tumult and changes in north africa last year had to do with the google search and twitter because the government could not block all forms of people's ability to communicate. they could call meetings. they could protest. they could demonstrate. they could do things in the past that couldn't be done so you can change the world for the better in a host of ways, government is one. i'll leave you with the last thought. i was in switzerland, you a think of it bag peaceful and neutral, you know, i know israel requires that you serve the country. i have to happened to be in vietnam, respect anyone who receivers the country in any capacity. in switzerland, you have to serve the country for three years, map or woman, has to join

the service. so i think in our hearts, we ought to have an unwritten rule to find a way to give back to america. you are so lucky because you have a host of ways, and no one should tell you how to get back. follow your heart. clearly, there's ways to impact the world, just sitting at home on the computer, you can change the world, and i encourage youd to do so. >> thank you, governor, for raising that last appointment. also, when we go to philadelphia for the next meeting of the commission, to think about other institutions of public service we can create. there's military service, the peat corp, americorp. if people ran for governor, senator, not the first office, but started somewhere else. you started somewhere else. talk about motivations for running, getting in at the lower level, and also what you see in california for people today looking to get into politics,

but breaking in at a lower level who might then use as steppingstones to move to higher office. >> my primary motivation came when i was in vietnam because i believe i read in the newspaper, and when i get over there, i found it a different situation. first of all, i didn't find anyone in stanford from columbia law school in vietnam. i found mostly southern whites, lot of minorities, and this is an era when we had a draft. presumably everybody had some -- you might end up in vietnam whether you wanted to or not, put it that way, eneveryone was under the burden of receiverring the country. i had an old-fashion notion that everybody was doing their part. that was not the case. that was in the back of my mind in los angeles, practiced law, and asked initially to help tom bradley get elected as mayor of l.a., lost in a close race to the incumbent, won the second time, and i attribute my motivation to leaving practicing

law, not quitting, but a leave of absence, to get back to the experience i had in vietnam leading to a succession of different offices, chief of staff for jerry brown, and then running for the legislate. you can just run for president of the united states as first office. you might not make it. same with governor or senator, but generally people like to see that you've been elected as some other office first as a demonstration of your bone fee sis that you can accomplish something with people's confidence, and that might be a promotion to whatever office you run for now. local school board, legislature, congress, those are good points of entry, and you learn a lot about the process and you will prove to people that you are willing to do the hard work, pay your dues, and wait your turn, which still, you know, res --

resinate with voters. it's fun to start at the top. i remember being at new governor school, all the governors appreciate this. i'm sitting next to jesse ventura, elected in 1998, a former wrestler in mips, governor phenomenon -- governor for one term, reading my resumé, and he says, my god, first you were this, that, then this, then that, finally governor, and i said what should i have done? he said, go into wrestling, get famous, and elected governor. [laughter] there are exceptions, but for most, you have to accommodate trying one office first before you run for president of the united states. >> so turning to chris mar vine. you're a veteran, run an organization that is bringing veterans into public service. veterans have a strong recoro running for public office at

higher rates in the population. what do you say about today's veterans, coming back? did they feel less likely to run than an earlier generation? what's the motivation? they clearly have served, they want to serve more. what are they thinking? >> well, governor davis mentioned the drafts in vietnam, and, of course, something like a draft does put skin in the game for everybody; right? everybody has to be a part of it. it's a form of sighing engagement in a way, and we don't have that today. we have an all volunteer military force meaning every single perp in the military chose to do it, signed up to receiver, and they have served, and many of them when they come home, pick up the uniform, the service doesn't stop. i think contrary sometimes to poplar belief in the public, they say thank you for your service, that was enough, that was amazing. these are people preprogrammed in some way to serve. a lot of them, you know, may

havevolunteered in the communities or boy scouts, girl scouts, and that led them to military service. for many, it's political public service as well, and that's striking today that in 19, i think, 72, the early p # 0 -- the early 70s, 95% of congress were military veterans. anybody have any idea what it is today? it's actually 19.4%. it's higher than the distribution of veterans in the adult population, but it's actually significantly lower than the veterans running for congress. so one in four federal congressional races in 2012 had a military veteran, the primaries, not just the early races. only 12 were legislated.

23 left. for the 32 years in a row, there's a decrease in the number of veterans in congress, and lowest rate of veterans in congress today since the 1920s. we have the highest level of hyperpartisanship, and i make an argument, and others might agree, that while veterans will not solve the problem, and the lack of veterans didn't cause the partisan problem, they help. they are used to being a part of something greater than themselves. a lot of times, a democrat and republican serve next to each other in iraq and afghanistan figure out how to push a bill through despite partisan tendency. whether we talk about military service, whether we talk about americorp or the peace corp, those who served and worked together know how to be part of something greater than themselves, and these are the people we do want to see in our

legislatures. >> i want to turn back to mark gearan, one of the hats you wore that i did not mention, was that he was the director of the transition for the clinton administration, and that, as ambassador tuttle mentioned is a big operation maybe in another country where you have to find, bring into government, there are thousands, and there is the mapping from going to the campaign to the administration so what are some of the challenges? what are the ways in which our system, while allowing people to come in, serve the public, is making it a little hard? >> i think the ambassador's point is well taken in terms of the many different ways, and particularly in looking at the federal government and the generational shifts that we're right on the beginning of in terms of the many interesting, very gray areas that exist, particularly for young people because you get a great

how many months is the person to be put on ice? maybe he or she is a practicing attorney, and while everybody thinks they are confirmed as the next u.s. senator or judge or who is going to go and sign up with them as the attorney and give them a contract for the year. that's the income. at some appointment, they just say i can't do it. well, i think there was some individual back in my state of, like, two years. they truly wanted to serve. that's what i think is wrong.

this goes back, and you know the ambassador feels about this as well, we talked about it at lunch, but when you're party has the white house, you absolutely are convinced that that president has every right to have their nominee voted up or down. that's it. just vote up or down. when you're not in the white house, you'll do whatever's necessary to delay it, use it as leverage. that's why i think everybody, every party has be on record as saying a president should have their nominees voted up or down. they are not consistent. they don't say it all the time, but you got them on record, put us together, you have the case, and say, all right, we're now going to vote on it, make the effective day five years from now, eight years from now, so that it does not affect any incumbent administration, okay?

that way it's going to be app advantage for whoever happens to win the white house next time. i think that's the way thati can be done. that's part of the reform i'd suggest. >> one way to tern to hernandez and the issue that governor davis raised, the issue of universal service of the draft or can we think about other institutions of service that we can create? we have the military, the peace corp, americorp, a number of governmental institutions, but are there others we should create and things in government you see in the notary public-profit -- nonprofit sector you are longing to do, have institutions for them to serve? >> well, i mean, there's a lot of institutions that people with curve on and be volunteers on non-profit boards, but let me go back to the issue of government service. a lot of young people want to work in government. i started in the senate

judiciary committee. i worked for ted kennedy, and i, you know, i was one of the people that had to vet the judges, and individuals, and i will tell you, i love the time that i worked in the senate. i worked with senator thurman, hatch, simpson, a place where you work together to find solutions. i can tell you that i would not work in the senate today because of the fact that people go in to make a difference. you know, it's, like you said, it's not about you. it's about wanting to change the world. it's about wanting to see results, and if you don't see an institution functioning to get to those results, you're not inclined to do that. the next question, it's wonderful that young people want to serve, and, you know, we saw the poll, and it's really -- a

wonderful, you know, sort of affirming of the fact that people want to serve, but the question is why? is it to changed world? if it's the change to world, i tell you young people are turning to other institutions, and now i think one of the biggest mistaking -- mistakes, my son went to iraq, was in the military, and as a matter of fact, still in the reserves, and i think one of the biggest mistakes this country has made is a volunteer military because it is through mandating to serve your country to meet people from different stratus of society, to see yourself in the same boat that you have this commitment to a country, you see yourself as part of the whole, and i will tell you my foundation has been very involved in helping veterans returning from afghanistan and iraq, and one of the things that

i find, you know, very diss tushing to e -- disturbing to me is the isolation of the folks in the military and lack of support given to the military individuals. they are coming back with immense problems, and the support is not there, and because not everyone has served or the possibility of service, there's not that sense of commitment. we thank them at the airport. we thank them when we see them in military, but are we really, you know, sort of understanding the sacrifices that these military people have made? so my thing with young people is there are tons of things that you can do, and this generation's not waiting for us to tell them what to do. they are doing it. they, you know, they are developing new non-for-profits. we get hundreds of applications to my foundation from young people who started a tutorial in the intercities, and, you know,

the food bank. i will tell you, last year we honored a yung high school, 17-year-old high school, from the age of 14, lives in the san gabriel valley, probably here in s iring's -- simi valley, a lot of fruit trees. he bought the equipment and started knocking on doors saying can i take the fruit? can i take the crop, and then he would deliver it to the food bank. it's not a lack of commitment. it's not a lack of wanting to do it. it's going back to the issue that we're here today. what is it in our government whether it's local, whether it's state, whether it's federal, whether it's the assembly or the senate. are the institutions working? are they solving problems to convey to the young people these institutions are worthy because they are solving the issues?

i think that's the question about servicing in government. now whether young people are committed to service. >> governor, just a quick follow up, and then governor. >> yeah, i just wanted to pick up on something antonia said about skin in the game. i don't think we should have a draft, but i think we should have, if not a compulsory, but an implicit understanding that everyone ought to serve six months doing something, the peace corp, teaching, the homeless institution, regularize is so there's a certificate of service because it's one thing we all do together, all americans, no matter how busy, no matter how into our own thing we are, we give something back to make the country better. there's advantages of the draft, which i don't propose, is we

would not have. in iraq for ten years. we might have been in iraq for ten months because everyone gets to weigh in because everyone is concerned that their son or daughter may be forced to go to a place they don't want to go. you can't have a world living in relative comfort with 1% or 2% of the country doing the heavy lifting for america. i have great admiration for men and women receiverring -- serving multiple deemployments. that was not in vietnam. it's unfair the disproportioned amount of keeping america secure falls on a very small part of the population. that having been said, i think row instituting the draft is a mistaking but we need a way to engage middle class america as if they had skin in the game to weigh in if they are not pleased with how a military adventure is going. >> quickly, a huge plug for all

of you out there who, when you graduate from high school or college want to serve. americorp or teach for america are great programs, and if i had the pen, i would sign a five to ten-fold increase in the number of slots for those programs because they are so incredibly important in teaching leadership and in giving exposure to the country and problems in the country you might not otherwise have seen. i have two daughters going through city year, coined to the toughest school in the two tough school districts in the country, and if you ever want to run for office, them have an experience that feels a passion for you, and that passion -- my kids are obsessed now about poverty in education, about making a change in education. i don't think they will run for office, but i know they want to make a difference in that area because they have been exposed

now and burning with the desire for change. for all of you, take a dpap here or after college, either way, it is a hugely growing experience, and i wish every young person in america could do it. >> governor, a quick follow up. i want to go to twitter and poll question after you. >> yeah, john, thanks. john bridgeland, also a member of the commission was going to be here, but had family issues he must be with, but john is working with admiral mullen, general mcchrystal, others, military leaders developing what is app alternative to military service which is civilian service to the country. it's what's discussed here. >> great idea. >> good people. i've been to the meetings. i think they are affiliated with the aspen institute. there will be a proposal coming from that, and it will be a call, a call to serve.

and the youth of this country are raised to stand up. >> turning to twitter results. i have a poll question put up for our online viewers, and that question, if you remember was, would you consider running for political office in the future? our audience is, i think, perhaps more public spirited than other polls i've seen, 58% say yes, that's a good thing, and 42% saying no. a couple questions from twitter, turning to the add yep as well for questions. two questions i have, which are similar, put them together, one is from tony, which what is educators do to help the next generation of public service to get beyond gridlock? another question from california, which is is unwillingness relative to not running to serve?

put those questions together to think of motivations for those running for office, some, clearly, always have. an association with the party, finding your way in the republican or democratic party, finding the issues there, but are we at a point where we're more ide loming -- ideological in that respect and just want to give back and not associate with a party? anybody can take this. what's the relationship between today's people and polarization versus the past? yes, governor davis. >> well, clearly since the day that tom daschlefuls the majority leader, there's not a sense that we can work together on a bipart sapp basis. reagan invited tip to have a drink, work things out, and there was progress. george bush the elder, same attitude. i don't know when it started to change, but, you know, we pay the salary of all the people you send to washington and

sacramento. they are working for you. , and they have to come back saying this is what i was able to do for you and the country the last two to four years, and not just that i have the amendment that failed or i made a speech, but what happened to move the country forward to give you more opportunity, and i don't know how that's going to change unless america starts voting out incumbents. i don't say that lightly because they are trying hard, doing their best, but the signal has to go back to washington that we're tired of excurses. we're tired of you telling us we can't do the job. you can't do it, fine, step aside, we'll find someone who can. i don't see how you get past gridlock if gridlock still gets your member of congress reelected. only thing that gets their attention is losing or their buddy losing, and then they say, oh, i have to look at what i'm

doing here, but going back there, spending half the time in recess, raising money in that time, coming back with excuses why they couldn't make the country better is not good enough. >> anybody else? do we have a different type of perp running today? one of the questions is are we attracting more extremists to run? are we attracting committed people to ideas, is that a problem today, or is that -- where are we? >> john, i'm just going to point out examples. very, very positive examples. it's not that they are sitting on the sidelines. they may not choose to run for office, doesn't mean they are not doing e tremendous things to help change the world. i mean, that -- just stand up and cheer those folks, the old individual initiative, not waiting for government to take care of them. pretty awesome. >> but i think for young folks who really are committed what i

would say o you is learn to listen, and tolerance is the most important thing, and understand that politics is give and take, you know, it's sausage making, and you don't get everything, but you have to come in with the attitude that you're going to take a little, you're going to give a little. i think, you know, coming from extreme positions, you've already come into a system of gridlock, and that's the modeling that you have to do, and i think that the schools, to some degree, are responsible for not teaching civics, not teaching government, not teaching the understanding of how the democracy works. it was made to work on a give and take. it was not an -- it's not app absolute. you know, where the majority gets everything, and i think that that's really important to listen, not to be just, you know, thoughts or, you know,

cnbc, but to listen to other people and try to put yourself in their shoes. that' the real art had seeing a successful leader understanding people vote for you for the vamming that owe start f -- for the values you stand for, and that you're not going to change. don't sign pledges, never. [laughter] unless it's a pledge to the voters who elected you, but -- >> well, another question from twitter, and that is from brian d. from california who asks how do we get more middle class people to run for office when campaigns are expensive? is that an obstacle people face today? >> i would say that seeing earlier panels, you know, and being somebody who is young, knows necessarily, and one thing that scares me off is the idea i have to raise millions of dollars, and so where would that

come from, and i think that, you know, sort of juxtaposing against the previous question is not the extremists that is running because thanks are extreme, but it's the same symptoms creating hyperpart sappship that are also, you know, causing discouragement with people potentially running for office, and that might be just the reputation of washington in some circles, the gridlock, the necessities who raise a lot of money that we think contribute to the hyperpartisanship and contribute to the lack of participation, but that, we're only really measuring that in those who are winning rations; right? we're not measures that necessarily of those running races because there's still a lot of people running for races, a democrat, republican district, vice versa, who may not see the

problems, who are out to serve the public, winning races. >> governor -- >> john, to brian's question, i think us in the pam and by partisan politics, we have to be careful we don't become to nasty centric that we think every office is federal. it's nots. >> right. >> there's a lot of wonderful middle class folks that are running for mayor, city commissioner, governor. >> that's right. >> school board. that's where they are. >> absolutely. >> that's a grooming ground where if they have a record, then they can go and offer themselves further. when i first decided to run for mayor of boise, i was 33, and when i went to the political thinkers, they said that is the dumbest idea we've ever heard of

because if you were thinking of politics, didn't run for mayor. nobody's. able to do anything -- nobody's been able to do anything in this city, you'll be from the biggest city in the state, so you'll never be elected anything beyond that, so i took the counsel and ran. [laughter] because my motivation was simple. i truly believed in my heart i could be part of a solution for a community that i loved, where my children would be born, and if that was the extent of my public service, so be it because every day for the rest of my life, when i would walk down that town, i would know somehow i did something that was good. >> and, dirk, suspect it true that at the state and local level, that's where compromise happens and people know how to work together. >> absolutely, i believe in it. >> one quick, and them the audience for questions. >> i think you can make a difference if your goal is to do

that, not to see how long you can stay in office. >> yeah. >> because it's amazing what you can do if you are willing to risk your office. people sense the passion. they see you are genuine, and they are moved by that because they know you are vulnerable and take a risk. sometimes you lose in office. one of the reasons i lost my third race for governor in a recall was i insisted on raising something called the vehicle license fee, which should be the public safety tax because it's a stamp on it and sent back to the local polices and sheriffs, and he was i was the only to lower the vehicle license fee, 50%, for one year, raise it back to where it was. people said, we didn't tell you to give us the money, you did, it's our money, see you later, to heck with you, we're keeping the money. [laughter] the point is, i raised the tax because i didn't want to shortchange local public safety,

which is important to all of us, and people understood that, and you know, arnold, who i like, came in and repealed it, but i think most people agree the state would be better off with the tax there. again, it's not going to sacramento, put the stamp on the money, goes to the local police. when people sense a passion, they know why you are doing it and willing to take a risk, then you make a dissention. if you want to make a difference and hang aired for 30 years, those are inconsistent goals. >> yeah. >> so i know we're going to be going to philadelphia to think about the questions in the future so if the commissioners have a question about this, about -- or, if not, turning to the audience for a question before we wrap up today's program, and there is a mic floating around. i'll go to the back left here, and if you just could identify yourself to the -- when the mic comes.

>> larry kennedy, college district trues -- trustee. you se toee about june -- universal service to the government, military, americorp, vista, and i wonder if there's any public policy problems to link that with student loan debt that is so huge. how can we insent vise, so, i, myself, i was strapped, you know, there's no studies, how can we insent vise it so everybody who does serve feels like they got something back? >> mark, you m to take that? >> well, a great question. i observe to the point that we have great programs. peace corp, americorp, vista, that are highly applied for programs. when i was director of the peace corp, we had 10 # -- 10,000 app pageses and 35

positions. i don't know that the 6500 others were ready to be volunteers, but why in god's name are we saying no to americans who 79 -- want to go to the most desperate places on the planet to serve? peace corp is 1% of 1% of the budget, military marching bands, i'm a big fan of, are a bigger part of the budget. terrorist an imper -- there's an imperative. they have challenges hearing that, so, i think, which is not to the point of insent vising what you see as an interest of young americans and not so young wanting to give back in these ways outside the military, but we're not responding to the four to five-fold increase that governor suggested. in addition, i think individual colleges and universities

providing ideas to provide incentives, loans, programs and federal incentives that i think could be tied to that for either loan purposes or the front end with the americorp grants. >> i think we have time for one more questions before i bring jason up here, and back in the right since i started on the left, end on the right. [laughter] >> i'm cassandra, and i was wondering, you said that the people that volunteer to go into service are less committedded because of the lack of incentive or the lack of support from everyone, but if you initiated a draft, and there was more support. don't you think the people not wanting to be in service would be less committed? >> is universal service -- i

mean, the volunteer army today, people want to be there as chris mentioned. is the idea of universal service going o bring a lot of people into the service who don't want to be there? is that a fair enough summary? >> well, i'll take a crack at it. the answer is possibly, policy. i think we make it broad enough. the universal service is not just americorp vista. as far as i am concerned, serve your local church, school board, senate, mosque, girl's club, boy's club, whatever. now, some of the people may not be able to compensate you, but hopefully that, as mark said, could be worked out to get scholarships, universities and colleges recognize the significance of your service