i would take the commission and say the recommendations you made were great, but there is not a ecstatic world. even the pass afnlgtd affordable care act and the exchange coming in to play has changed the dynamic, and so i would say i want a new set of goals. i want 2020 goals. i want health care cost containment to be one of the goals, but i want central to this payment reform. delivery and payment reform as your consideration. how do we go from a fee-for-service and what do we do to make the transition and consider it not as a one-time thing. the commission made the recommendations. it's ongoing work and important to treat it that way. as environment changes to change the set of goals but keep quality of service and payment foremost in your mind.

>> governor, you get the last word. >> if i were governor for day i would issue an executive order redefining the length of a day. [laughter] >> shorter? >> i think it's going to take more than a day. this is a very good report, but as we said this morning, this is a process that is going take ten to fifteen years. the report is procedural as well as substantiative in the recommendations. how do we pay for health care in the future? and how do we deliver health care in the future? it's not easy to change the laws, it's not easy to change regulations. it's not easy to change cost structures to persuade doctors, nurses, and other health care providers to change what they're doing. even though are changes underway across the country even as we speak comp brings me back to alice's first point and several others made the same today. the most important recommendation in this report,

or at least the first recommendation that should be implemented the collaborative exercise, the power of the governor to convene the important stakeholders. but i would caution you that the power to convene is not the same as the power to produce results. the power to promote an idea is not the same as promoting or persuading the public to pursue a course of action. so to me, the teddy roosevelt's use of the bully bull pit is a good example here. the economic imperative, the personal imperative is such that the governor is perhaps the most key player in this. at least in initiating the process and then sustaining the interest in driving the program's progress forward. that's going take more than a

day. >> i give myself the power to declare this over! i want to thank you for giving enormous food for thought on substantiative and procedural level. thank you to all of you and joining our conversation today. thank you. [inaudible] [inaudible conversations]

on our next "washington journal."

if i were to identify the most singular important challenge it would be that. the notion that diversity is just as available. the truth of the matter is, the reason why we are here today is because of this inclination, which i read somewhere that it's not only a historical but

actually antihistorical. because itedness entry of islamic tradition. hundreds of years of diversity and subscribes the idea to be a muslim you have to follow its antics from the first -- second century and very limited short period of time. i think our journey as american-muslim has to be about refusing to be told by those who speak for us that islam in its ideal is a seventh century reality. we are americans and muslims who need an islam of the 21st century. being muslim in america, sunday night at 9:00 on "after words." part of booktv this weekend on c-span two. and online for this month's booktv book club will be discussing the "the liberty

amendments." and the tax code. in his annual state of the american business speech. he t is a look. we will be involved in thll election and primary.et right now open seats or whatever riey happen to be. the therefore we should get the very best candidate and what representing both parties forfu le that ose of ending up with the best result. the very paies bably now have a good half a dozen places that we're looking at in open seats and primaries.ng to

and wealth be there in the house and the senate. how you asked about the teaserv party. mu'reesting a -- when the tea party first came v out with who they were and what .hey believed. they talked about things the ouamber very much supports. cam they talked about sensible tax policies, they talked aboutsupp. reasonable control of federal cost. they talked about trade, the ree opportunity create jobs and all of that stuff was pretty good. and then we had a lot of peoples that came along that different views, and they tried to hitch their wagon to the tea party a f engine, and those were the thatd to hit theied not pay the

and ral debtr and shut down the government, and to take more radical approaches to try to get where we d want to get. why don't we protect the people here.y w don't wind me as attacking the tea party. s i'mo not. an [inaudible]le >> thomas ryan with bloombergata news.ck can you say what elections you'll be focusing on and what tea party candidates among thosi that you mentioned? can >> the first answer is no e focu and will tea party candidates be among those that you just mentioned? >> the first answer is no because what am i sending a lot of announcements out for? stay tuned, news when you see it. will tea party candidates -- i just segmented between the original -- i'm not trying to be

difficult. this is a place i got to be very careful. i want -- you know, if -- i know a whole lot of tea party folks. if a lot of them are running, i'm going to support them. the question is who are we talking about when we absolutely get there? and what do they want to do? people that walk into the -- announce i'm going to run for the house or senate, my idea is to burn down -- i'm hyperbolizing, my idea is to burn down the town, i won't support them. people who believe in the things we talked about will likely to get our support. one little refinement there, if we have somebody that is an 85%, 95% voter with the chamber, we're certainly going to support them over a challenger. >> sir, sir, this is kevin baum from cnn. following up on that point, you are also entertaining supporting challengers to incumbents who

have not been supportive of the tea party versus just supporting people who have been supportive of the tea party? >> take the tea party out of that question, say will we support folks that challenge house majority leader spoke today about his view on school choice. including the student success act map house passed overhaul of the no child left behind law that allow federal funding for low-income families for charter schools. this is 50 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon. >> hi. >> thank you for joining us. we're in the middle of a tropical heat wave here. at least compared to yesterday. it's if good for you to come out

and be us today for the 2013 release of the education choice and competition index. i'm russ. i'm directer of the brown center on education policy here at brookings. so the drill for today is i'll talk to you a little bit about the report we released. copies available outside. i wouldn't assume you have one. the written report is an introduction to the interactiveon line information, which is the real substance of the release. you'll see, if you would like to tweet about the event. you'll see the #on the screen to either side of me and url to the interactive website is available there.

think about it. amazon, ebay, yelp, open table, i can go on and on with the e sites that promote shopping. there's also dizzy aware of store front options of everything from restaurants to physicians, and the store fronts are increasingly supported by digital tools to help us decide on the local restaurant we want to choose or whatever. and in fact, freedom as we understand it, is very much bound to the ability to choose. our freedom of choice wrestle the availability of different providers, the services and goods, we want. and one doesn't serve our needs we turn to another. if we get a bad people we try

the next place. if they wanted or needed to send their school to a child. is a choice of where to live, that was available to those who could afford to move with the schools are good. and let's call that status quo zip code education. you want to buy a good step code because it has a good school associate with it. it's changing. and changing in a number of ways. notably, we see the growth of public charter schools. they did not exist 25 years ago. they presently enroll about 5% of public school students in state which is permit the formation of charter schools. they have at least a 20% chair in 32 large school districts. here in the district of columbia, the charter school representation of the market is

now about 45%. which is quite extraordinary. in one of the districts i'll be talking about today new orleans it's about 80%. it's dramatic growth within a short period of time in term of the evolution of our education system. based on their place of residence. we see the e maine jensen in louisiana, arizona, of statewide voucher programs that bring to 12, the number of states that provide a public subsidy of students. frequently those with disabilities to attend private schools parents' choice. we see increases in the availability of technology-based distance and virtual yule education as an alternative to traditional seat-based education.

in florida, for example, students can take advantage of florida virtual school, which was free to them and take a variety of courses in in lieu of the traditional school district. we have seen the passage in the house of representatives. we chronicle the changes. this is the third. we plan to take the index back in time so you can look at the status of choice ten years ago and continue to update it annually. what we do in the district in the index is look at the hundred largest school districts in america. that's been the focus of most of

the action in term of k-12 choice and competition. we had a few smaller districts. what cousin it take to get a good score. geographic call areas in term of providing choice to public education. you need a lot of choice. magnet schools, charter schools, affordable private schools, and virnl yule education. second you need a choice process that maximizes the match between prarnt tal preference. that would include things like no default. everybody has to choose rather than parent getting defaulted in to a school and having to fight their way out by exercise of choice through a will -- common application you apply once instead of 15 oar 20 time.

that favor the growth of popular schools at the company of unpopular schools. it include, for example weighted school funding as a school grows in term of enrollment, the funding grows as well. and like wise as schools lose students the funding is reduce. interestingly around the country there's a provision such that schools that are losing students in fact prosper they get smaller class size and more facilities and less -- able we like to see processes for closing, filing unpopular schools rather than letting them linger on for years when knob wants to go there. if i have choice and i'm an affluent parent and i can afford to stay at home and put my car in the morning to drive the child across town to a school of

choice, where as if i'm a poor parent i have no ability to do it. it's not an equitable choice. the winners this year are the winners from last year. in term of the school -- the district of innovation. the recovery school district? new orleans. these are in louisiana. they are smaller districts. they're at the froar front of introducing a well-designed are techture. among the larger district new york city is in first as last year. then houston and den denver. we've been particularly interested in denver, which rose from 24th to 5th place last year to they this year based on not a change in the availability

of choice, but a change in the way that parents could exercise choice. so now they have a one app process. parents apply once. they list their schools in performance. and the process is one that matches families with those choices in a way that minimizings the difference between what they want and they get. it does it in a way that can't be done any better given that the preferences that parents have expressed and so while every family doesn't get the first choice. as a% one is understandably distressed when they don't get the first choice. almost every family gets a really good choice. in denver in the last year 83% of parents got a school assignment for the child that was a first, second, or third choice. there were fewer than 400 families in all of denver that didn't get a choice.

nobody is perfect. even the best have a way to go. but the sprog encouraging. and think about it in denver. there were 30 different heck ni.s to exerdz a choice. different applications for every charter school. different time tables. that's real promise. with that with our introduction to the index for this year, let me turn what is a great pleasure. that is to introduce our speaker, majority leader eric cantor. leader carton has his undergraduate degree from george

washington university. and master's degree from columbia university. he came to washington when i did. in 2001. he's been elected every two years since in his district. it's the enrichment. my attention was drawn to what he's been doing by offering floor amendment to the reauthorization in the house. that offered the title one portable funding i talked about previously. really federal funding he has

recently been visiting schools of choice around the country. we look forward to your comments, thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you very much for the introduction and for the invitation. it is an honor for me to be here at brookings. i want to congratulate the brown center on the third annual unveiling of the education choice competitive index report.

i want to thank everybody in this room for all you do to help fix our education system in america. i know, there are plenty of different perspectives we bring to the table. but the fact we're all here thriving toward the same goal is trying to help kids through fixing the education system is saying something. so again thank the brown center for brookings for having us. let me begin with a very simple principle. we cannot be a great country without grate schools. as this year's index notes, america is in the midst of an education revolution with a hit for more choice for families. visiting schools, witnessing where school choice is firmly

taking root. i can tell you it is making a difference. we should celebrate the dedication of the parents, teachers, and advocates in the community that worked tirelyless to make these things happen. statement, i know we're here all agree that we must not rest until every school in every community -- every community adequately pro pairs every student for success in their pursuit whether it be college, career, or life. now even if a small portion of our schools fail. we all fail. whether we have children in school or not, all of us benefit if our schools improve. we'll all pay the price if we fail the next generation.

right now school choice is under attack and as ruse said there's a long way to go even with those communities at the top of this year's rankings. it's up to all of us and why we're here to work for and fight for the families who going to suffer the consequences if school choice is taken away. many of us, have like i have been across the country and seen for our own eyes what the difference the school choice makes. last september one of the visits i med i was in philadelphia. i met an increedble young man. he was a student there and he had a speech impediment. now a few years ago his parents james and crystal jones felt he was not getting the person

attention or receiving the effective education that he needed in school. so they send -- ended up at this school. i asked the parents i said what made you choose this school in well, both of them said -- first of all, it offered a safe place for him to go every day. but then they said, they were impressed with the administration and the faculty there by their genuine commitment to try to afford him the necessary tools for him to succeed. even if that meant spending extra time with him due to his special needs. because his parents had the freedom to choose, he is thriving. he is finally able, because he's been given a chance, to pursue his dreams. now, do me, he reminds us that behind each child --

behind each statistic is a child. a young boy, girl, young man, or young woman whose generation will, in the not too distant future, will responsible for the future of america. we have a responsibility to them right now. a responsibility, yes, through our own children, if we have them, to our country's children, to our communities, and our country's future to insure that the kids in the next generation do aggravated assault prepared for life and prepared to lead. all parents and families should have a safe place for the children to learn. but the harsh reality is as the index indicates that millions of kids across the country are denied the chance that his family has. that's unacceptable.

now politic and policy a part of our every day here in washington. most times, if not fortune or unfortunate. safe and effective schools for all children isn't and should not be a political issue. it's not a partisan issue. it matters to every single one of us. if especially matters to those living in poverty who are celebrate -- desperate for a lifeline.

we are losing generations of kids the federal government's approach to fixing the system has been based on two principles. spend more money and give more control to washington. since the mid 19 60s the federal government has spent billions of dollars to improve schools in low-income areas when little to no effect. americans have a right to ask. why do our student test rates lag those in the industrial world. why do in the large cities do only half of public high school students graduate on time? when the fact is, our biggest cities offer advantages that

should make it easier, not harder, to have innovative and effective schools. surrounded by universities, cultural institutions, and diversity of industries children and urban areas should be succeeding. than don't graduate. the simple act of graduating high school, not only dramatically increases the chance someone has a job, but it dramatically decreases the chance that someone turns to crime. in america's large cities unemployment and crime are staggering problems. introducing choices in to these areas especially helps the kids and just as importantly helps the communities. the dropout rate in urban areas

must be brought down to the national average. and school choice will help us achieve that goal. now working together, all of us, should make teaching easier for teachers and should make learning easier for students. we must embrace teachers, the schools, and the communities that are succeeding remove the roadblocks, and expand school choice. this is how we're going begin to close the opportunity gap and produce real results for all america's students. especially those who are so desperately in need of our help. on a recent trip to new orleans, as russ pointed out. in the lead as the index indicates. i visited a catholic school in downtown new orleans. i met a young student named bryan. now, bryan never met his mom.

she's not around anymore. the only way he has ever spoke ton his father through is prison bars. he's being raised by his grandmother, when i was there, he just found out she was diagnosed with cancer. all account one would say bryan doesn't have a lot at home. what he does have when he comes to school is a lot more than most students in america. he's in a great school. surrounded by caring teachers, who go above and beyond and are truly committed to his progress. bryan is thriving. he told me he has big plans for the future, and at 1e9 years old, he's aiming high. he says he's got his heart set on going college. now, bryan has the opportunity to attend this school because of louisiana's scholarship program. a program championed by the governor who was here --

reminds me last year, a program that governor jindal sponsored that provides kids who live below the poverty line with the resources to attend a school of their family's choice. now, when speaking here at brookings, governor jindal said to oppose school choice is to oppose equal opportunity for poor and disadvantaged kids in america. i couldn't agree more. but don't take his or my word for it. just look at the results. these scholarships have brought hope and opportunity to thousand of students just like bryan across the state of louisiana. and as russ mentioned, other states. what governor jindal did in louisiana is a model that governor ace cross the country can and should adopt. now unfortunately, this program is under threat. attorney general holder and the justice department took

louisiana to court claiming that it education opportunity program impedes progress made through desegregation. in other words, the attorney general is accusing the state of using this program to discriminate against minorities. this kind of attack on an effective program that is designed to help everyone providing scholarships to kids of every background, to me, is political payback to those who oppose school choice. they see school choice as a threat. they're right. school choice is a threat. to the status quo. school choice protects families and children not bureaucracies. school choice is about making sure that every student, like elisha and bryan who have highs

a per ration and big dreams beyond the challenges in their daily lives ensures them they can have the best teachers in the best possible school environment. surely that's a goal that all of us can agree on. after repeated calls to do so, the attorney general withdrew his initial request to permanently shut down the program. however, he still demanding that the federal government have a veto right over each child's scholarship award and that parents cannot be notified about their child's scholarship until it receives federal approval. now governor jindal correctly identified this as an attempt, quote, red tape and regulate the program to date. now i challenge general holder to visit l.a. and meet with the students and parents who participate in this education

scholarship program. i challenge general holder to look these families in the eye, z ahave, to walk bryan and his grandmother, to listen to how the scholarship has improved their lives and hope for the future. then perhaps he can try to explain to them how what he's trying to do is going help them. now, unfortunately, the attacks on school choice and the successful programs are not limited in louisiana. over the last decade in new york city, the bloomberg administration made it easier for charter schools to colocate with other public schools in the same building. i know, they are placed on the list in the index is indicative of some of the efforts. it may not sound like revolutionary change colocating with public school. what it meant for the charter school was the real, meaningful improvement for families in the

city. the real estate costs were detrade pane the number grew from 17 to 183 charter schools in twelve years. but now it is being reported that city's new mayor, bill deblase owe, is considering a more or it yum on charter school colotions and may even go so far as charging them addition nam rent. if the mayor pursues these policies. the mayor should abandon this idea. and should allow new york city's charter schools to flourish. on issues like this, the house

of representatives and our committee will remain individuality lant in our effort to ensure that no one, no one from the government stand in the schoolhouse door between any child and a good education. right here there is huge progress in school choice as the index notes. sin it was created in 2004 with bipartisan support, the d.c. opportunity scholarship program has received more than 11,000 applications gain the equivalent of an extra 72 days and 101 days

in math instruction over the course of a year compared to the counter part in traditional public schools here. what an incredible achievement. yet, despite the program's success and popularity. president obama has refused to include funding for it and annual budget. plain and simple, the program works. no matter what party or what philosophy weed adhere to or come from, we should all leave no doubt that the d.c. opportunities scholarship will receive the funding and support that it deserves. now the house, as russ indicated, has been very active and leading on school choice. in july we did pass a student success act. this bill was built around the idea that chairman kline and our education committee have been working on nap is we should

learn from one another's successes. we should build on improvements that are delivery the real results for children and the schools they attend. now this act will help expand education opportunity by providing incentive for states to replicate high quality charter schools. the bill requires that school systems provide parents access to information about performance of their schools. parent can hold schools conditional for the quality of education their students achieve. a student success act also includes an amendment that ruse talked about that i authored for the first time does allow federal fund to follow tight i kids. for the first time. this ensures that the priority remains what is best for those children and their families. no one else's priorities.

with as pass able of the bill, i believe the house took an important step toward advancing education opportunity for all students in america. i urge the senate to begin consideration today of that house-passed bill. no more than two million students across america are taking advantage of public charter schools. over the past five years, student enrollment in these charter schools has grown by 80%. and another 225,000 families use tax credit scholarships or vouchers to attend private schools. school choice programs are experiencing this kind of expansion for one very siferl reason. they work. they deliver real and measurable results. so it is my personal goal that in ten years every child in america will have an education

opportunity through school choice no matter where they live. progress isn't easy. we automatic know that in this town especially. but nothing truly important is ever very easy. so improving our schools, fixing our education system, we know it's not going happen overnight. but we do have a responsibility to make it a priority and work at it each and every day. and i know that thanks to brookings and brown center, russ, and al -- all of your work and good will of the folks in this room as well as the millions of dedicated parents and families across this country that we really are well on our way. so thank you very much for having me. [applause]

thank you very interesting remarks. some of our guests here are unwilling to say anything controversial. and glad you're not typically in that respect. an issue that you touched on, i want to delve in to a little bit further, if i may with you. that is the act. current law governing elementary and secretary education was passed in law in 2001. here we're in 2014 with the reauthorization. student success act. what do you see the prospect for some kind of bipartisan agreement on the nation's education law? and career is education choice in there. it used to be distinctly nonpartisan. when we released index in the first year. i was getting call from the democratic staffers on the i had saying something my boss might be able to get behind.

with the deblase owe victory in new york. it seems it's changing a little bit. >> first of all, i think the senate has got to go and take up a reauthorization of secondary education act. that is number one. and just as so many other things in this town, certainly there is some deeper difference on secretary education poll. it doesn't mean the senate shouldn't act. question go ahead and begin the process of trying to understand where there is commonality. i think there are plane they agree they are one. i know that several months ago,

arne duncan came down richmond, where i'm from. we held a round table. it was on higher education, but we had a discussion about charter schools and what he can do to perhaps work together on those. not unlike so many other issues. i think the focus should be on trying to come together. there are so many easy opportunities to differ. let's take on the project of saying where we can come together and common. as i said, it is on behalf of those kids like bryan and elisha and the durch more i have met that experienced a change in the live trajectory because of school choice. >> thank you. i would like to give those in the audience a opportunity ask questions.

the remarking about status of the d.c. scholar. what the leadership is doing ensure in the current negotiation that there is increased and stable funding. >> i would venture to say your hope is mine is. we can maintain the level of

funding i have seen on the ground in private schools here in the district the benefit it's coniferred on individuals in it the city. families who are impoverished and have seen the lifeline that program offers. have certainly the priority, i'm hopeful, next week when we vote on the package of spending and the domestic priority that will be one of them. >> it's a must do. >> for me. for either of you, i didn't hear

the position. do the teachers union have a position on school choice. >> i would say the teachers union there's not just one teachers union of course. they are on a per state basis. they have been more open to public school choice in the form of charters. and general hostile to choice in the vouchers that allow them to attend private school. the support of charter school has been tepid at best. why would you want to encourage the growth of schools in which you don't have members. >> russ, i would add as women. i'm from virginia.

those from virginia know we don't have teachers unions. we don't have public employee unions in virginia. and yet we have one of the most challenged charter school laws in the country, i would say. if i'm correct. and so it's -- i think more of a question than those who are just supporting the status quo. because again in a senate doesn't have teachers unions per se. there's a lot of opposition that some point that for charter schools. that's kind of that i think all of us can work together to try to change that perception. charter schools is something can

be a good thing. it's not just getting kids out of failing schools. maybe there's a good psychological that a parent perhaps feel that doesn't best suit their child's needs.

in my opinion it's been that the federal government in term of education one of the rule is to disseminate information. like i said, where is the success and how can we build and share in that success?

and so i would hope that i know our committee under john's leadership is interested in helping facility more education option that allow more more success in the sun. and so i -- that's why i'm so strong in saying that and feeling that i believe that mayor bill's reported policy are going to hurt kids and their families. and they ought not go to effect. >> i was listening to the story on health care that was the press club this afternoon at 1:00. one of the thing that was interesting was the whole subject was on collaboration. i wonder what kind of collaboration exists in the k

through 12 of learning from other schools or cities. how do you promote that? i guess the other question are why people not in unions oppose this. made it tow for myself and the difference that education choice can make in the lives some of the students. i think most of the cities on the top thrice -- list. when you're at a school, it's not about who is republican, who is democrat, who is liberal, who is conservative. it's trying to do what is best for the kids. that's why i think education and so many ways represents the answer to not only the kids' future but the future of those communities, the future

competitiveness of our country, and ultimately as indicated before the future success trying to lift folks out of poverty. this is it. education reform and success in education will ultimately allow someone to escape and lift themselves out of poverty. so if there's anything that we should be able to collaborate around, it is that. your question why would there be opposition if there's no the union. i made the point because i think it's changed. people who are protective status quo are going to see as a threat. change can be scary it makes a difference for families and kids. such a difference we ought to take the change.

>> we are trying to help facility that on a biep bay -- bipartisan basis. i mentioned secretary duncan has said and demonstrated. he's willing to work across the aisle coming down richmond and joining me. we're going continue to try to do those things. i'm hopeful working together. it's going take the discipline to say we're going it disagree on the very big issues. but certainly question agree on helping kids. that's what i think the collaboration should be about and can be about. a management routine that looks much like what secure charters

are doing. the competition from successful charters lead them to change the regular schools in way that replicates what seems to be successful practices. jonathan palmer. earlier you talked about pulling money out of unpopular schools and districts that have regulation for school choice. i was wondering what about that

particularly. since i said it, we won't leave leader cantor to -- explain. on a per people basis. there's no loss, but if parents through choice are fleeing schools and you let the poor people unpopular schools double because half the number of kids. they continue to see the same appropriation. then it's the kids in the popular schools who are losing and not getting the fair share of the district's budget. it allows the schools that are losing kids to be held harmless but harmless to the families who are moving. >> thank you. >> u.s. department of education.

one quick question. you alluded to federal legislation regarding the education and i want to ask about the prospect of passing the iea enabling statute. to both of you, the prospect of passing some of the legislation in the coming year. >> well, begin, i -- again, i think there's been -- there needs to be a two-way street. there needs to be action on both houses. first, the thing that has to happen, the senate has to act.

>> gentleman here. yes? >> i'm michael. a board member of the american school for -- and past president. a question for the leader, but first, a tribute to brookings, thinking about your history on this issue going back a little over 20 years when terri and john who had brookings affiliation published the politics, marketing and american schools arguing the choices of panacea. ..

>> we saw the title i amendment and it was limited and i would have preferred a with whatever the families belles lettres. whether it was a faith based school or a public charter

school. and in terms of policy come i have seen it at work i side with state representatives there and we are held accountable by the program. and certainly the politics in a way and there was a lot of opposition making sure that was a bold choice although listen, i am in part of many other things and we are ending up getting what we want to go. >> gentleman on the outside

here. this is the last question, so let's make it a good one. >> hello, i am telemarketer and there is a large portion of public-school choice and with partisan gridlock committee think that embracing this approach would be a good way to bridge the divide between the two parties considering that they generally respect the right of teachers to unionize and they stay under the purview of a school district as far as administration goes. and they give parents the right to choose and encourage competition. so do you feel that possibly increasing this through federal programs may be a good way to move forward? >> certainly we have terrific schools and maggie walker is one of them and it is competitive

for the public-school students in the area. and i would say this. i am a supporter of that. but there is not a one-size-fits-all and we certainly should be about sharing success stories and that is what the chairman was about. building on the successes and replicating those. let's provide incentives for that. and i don't think there would be a one-size-fits-all. and that is what is broken is the one-size-fits-all and so many kids are being left out of a quality education and there have been so many still compared to this and we need to work to provide this platform, if you well for education choice nationwide and help provide incentives for what works.

>> thank you very much for being with us today, leader cantor. thank you so much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> coming up on c-span tonight, mitch mcconnell speaks about the state of the senate. then a rebuttal from the majority leader harry reid. later, house minority leader nancy pelosi and a news conference calling for action on

the uninsurance extension bill. thursday, the senate foreign relations committee examines the conflict in south sudan. the state department live at 1015 eastern on c-span3. and later, general frank grass ekes about the financial challenges facing them at 1:00 p.m. eastern also on c-span3. >> jackson drew a sharp line between states rights or nullification because it was an obvious consequence of nullification. and he drew a sharp line because he remembered as he stroked his head that the british were out there and they were waiting to pick the american states off one

by one. and i have to reiterate that jackson thought the world was a dangerous place. and he believes that that is the separation of the state. >> andrew jackson and crisis management sunday at 7:30 p.m. eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> the political system wednesday spoken about in washington. here's a look at some of the remarks. >> good morning, my name is ryan navarro and you had mentioned

the election in 2016. what would be the top three issues on your agenda if he were elected? >> i have supported hillary and thank you. and i think number one is inequality. and the other thing is we have to much debt and we cannot continue with and it is a serious problem and others were worried about these issues and the third is i have always believed that we should have a university health care system and i think we're making progress with that but we have a lot of work to do. >> can anyone be adequately prepared for the duties of first lady? >> just. >> if you are the light of a

governor or the wife of the vice president. born your mother-in-law was able to be watched for four years. >> i think it's a golden opportunity to do something and an opportunity to do something good. >> the world health organization estimates that more than 1.6 million people worldwide are diagnosed with breast cancer each year. many live in countries where the disease carries stigma and shame. by sharing the lessons we have learned, americans can empower more women to detect breast cancer early, which today is the closest thing we have to a cure. >> as you all know, chicago is a city of neighborhoods separated by parks and boulevards.

>> you go from historic homes and manicured lawns to abandoned buildings and dark street corners. and the opportunity is available to a child growing up in the city might be vastly different than a child growing up five blocks away. that difference can shape their lives and their prospects from the moment that they are born. >> monday, the original series first ladies influence and image returns of the five most recent first ladies. from nancy reagan through michele obama monday night at nine eastern on c-span and c-span2, and c-span3.

>> the state of the senate was given on thursday. no democrats aside from the presiding officer gave other remarks. this is about 40 minutes. >> they have been talking about certain debates. we promise dramatics change and we are working very hard to follow through on that pledge.

>> change has indeed come despite the daily drumbeat of headlines of gridlock and dysfunction in washington. the truth is that an activist president in a democratically controlled senate has managed to tick off a lot of items on their wish list one way or another. and just as important as what they did, and that has also been at the heart of so many of the fights that we have had around here over it the past few years. and these conflicts haven't

stemmed from personal grievances or contempt as some would have it. but they are instead part of an administration that was in such a hurry to impose its agenda. it neglected to persuade the public of its wisdom and cast aside one of the greatest tools we have in this country and it is a stable of this leash and and that is the united states senate. and i think we all know partisanship is not a recent innovation here. in american politics has always been divided between two ideological camps.

there are two major parties that have been there. on one side are those who proudly placed their trust in government and its agents to better institutions and direct our lives. and on the other are those of us who put our trust in the wisdom and creativity of private citizens working voluntarily with each other and three more local mediating institutions guided by their own sense of what is right and what is fair and what is good. most americans fall into the latter camp. and people are generally confident in their local government but lack confidence in washington.

yet despite this theological divide which has always existed in our country, we have almost always manage to work out our differences not by humiliating the other side into submission. but the simple give-and-take. and it is the secret of our success. the same that make marriage and family and business work are the ones that have always made this country work. a place where all the national conflicts and controversies arise in this big diverse wonderful country of ours that have always been resolved right here in this chamber.

right here in this chamber. now, i realize that i might not be immediately obvious why that is the case. and it is flourishing. and it has made all the difference. and here is why. because whether it was the fiercest early battles of the federal government or those that surrounded the industrialization including civil war and those

surrounding the great wars of the 20th century and the franchise or decades long cold war or the war on terror and we have always always found a way forward. almost every time. i mention this because of the new year, there a lot of policy debates that have occupied is over the few years in the debate that we have been having is over the state of this institution. what have we become? it is not a debate that is part

of this or the press. because on some level every single one of us has to be at least a little bit on easy about what happened here last november. and even if you are completely at peace about what happened in november the all-important will says rule says that changing the rules requires the assent of two thirds of senators elected and sworn enemy of us should be happy with the trajectory that the senate was on even before that day. even before november. even the condition after it was

created. i don't think anyone is comfortable with where we are. i know that i am not and even though there is no one over here at the moment, i bet that almost none of them are either. and so i would like to share a few thoughts on what i believe that we have lost over the last seven years and what i think can be done about it together. together with buyers the involvement that you would think of some people on the other side of the aisle. and even though they are not here to listen, they have been in writing. and so let me say at the outset that it is not my intention to point the finger of blame at anyone. though some of that is inevitable, i don't present to

have the answers and i certainly do not claim that we are without faults. but i'm certain of one thing. the senate can be better than what it is. many of us have seen a better senate that we have now. no matter who is in the majority. this institution can be better than what is. everyone in this chamber, including the folks on the other side do not agree. it just can't be the case that we are content with the theatrics in the war is that going here day after day. it just cannot be the case that

the senators who grew up reading about the great statesman who made her name in their marker now suddenly content to stand in front of a giant poster board making a point of the month and the day, day after day. and then running back to our respective corner and i just can't believe we are all happy with that. not on the either side. it is a time for making a political point and scoring a few points. and i know that as well as anyone. and it cannot be the only thing that we do here. surely we must do something other than scoring political points against each other. it cheapens the service we have sworn to provide to our servants. it cheapens the senate, which is a lot bigger than any of us.

so hopefully we can all agree that we have a problem here. i realize that both sides have their own account of what caused this and we have our talking points and they have their talking points. well, we need to repeat them. great repetition. and we have all congratulated each other for being on the right side of the debate and i get that. the guys over there think that republicans refused to rule and we think that they do. but i said that my goal is not to make that front but to suggest that the senate can do better than it has been that we must be if we were to remain as a great nation.

and i believe that the crucial first step is to recognize that the vigorous debate about our differences isn't a sickness to be lamented. the vigorous debate is not a problem. when did that become a problem? and it is actually a sign of strength to have vigorous debates. and it's a common refrain that the fights we have around here are pointless. they are not all pointless. every debate we have around here is in fact something important. and what is unhealthy is when we neglect means that we have always used to resolve our differences. that is the threat that is real to this country. when did they become a problem? and the best mechanism that we

have been arriving at a durable consensus is the united states senate. executive order cannot do it. the fiat of a nine person court cannot do it. the partisan majority in the house cannot do it. it is only the one that we have in all 50 states that have been representative and where every senator talks about the law that we passed. this is what the senate was designed for. it is what the senate is supposed to be about and almost always has been. just take a look at the

legislation of the past century and medicare and medicaid were both approved with the support of about half the numbers of the minority. and the voting rights act of 1965 past with a vote of 30 of the 32 members out of the republican minority. all but two republican senators. there were not many of them. and i was about a year after the goldwater debacle. only two senators voted against the social security act and only eight voted against the americans with disabilities act. now, none of this happened by throwing these bills together in the back room and dropping them on the floor with a stopwatch running. it happened through a laborious process of legislation and persuasion and coalition

building. it took a lot of time and patience and hard work and it guaranteed that every one of these laws had stability. now if you compare that, if you will to the attitude behind obamacare. when democrats couldn't convince any of us that the bill was worth supporting as britain. they decided to do it on their own. to pass it on a partyline vote and now we are seeing the result. the chaos is not just deeply tragic but it was, my friends, entirely predictable. and that will be the case always if you approach the legislation without regard of this. without some meaningful by an to guarantee this. you guarantee instability and

strife and it may well have been the will of the country was not to pass a bill at all. and that is what i would've concluded that the republicans could not get a single democratic vote for legislation of that magnitude. and i would've thought that maybe this is not such a great idea. the democrats plowed forward anyway and they didn't want to hear it and the results are clear. and it's an absolute max. the senate exists to prevent that kind of thing because without a moderating institution like the senate, today's majority passes for something and tomorrow tomorrow's majority reveals that. it proposes something that tomorrow's majority opposes.

we see that in the house all the time. but when the senate is allowed to work the way it was designed to, it resolves to rip arrive at a result of people of the political spectrum and that is the whole point. we have lost our sense for the value of that. and none of us should be at peace with that. because if america is to face up to the challenges that we face in the decades ahead, she will need the senate and the founders and their wisdom in tandem and not the hollow shell of the senate that we have today. not the hollow shell of the senate that we have today. and first, one of the traditional hallmarks of the senate is a judicious senate process and also one of the main things that we have lost.

there was a time not that long ago when the chairman and the reinking members had major influence and used their positions to develop national policy on everything from foreign policy to nuclear arms. and these men and women in which their focus and their expertise. just as importantly they provided an important counter wave to the executive branch. they provided another check on the white house and the president thought something was a good idea and he said he would like to run by the committee chairman who had been studying it for the past few decades. and if the chairmen chairman disagreed, well, they would have a serious debate. and probably reach a better product as a result. the senate should be setting a national priority. not simply waiting on the white house to do it for us.

the place to start that process is been the committee with few exceptions and that is gone. with very few exceptions that is gone. and it is a big loss to the institution and most importantly it is a big loss for the american people and here is something else. something we have gained from the robust committee process over the years. the committees have actually served as bipartisanship. and if you think about it it just makes sense. and by the time a bill gets through a committee, you would expect it to come out in a form that is broadly acceptable to both sides. nobody got everything, but more often than not everybody got

something. and the product was stable. because there was a buy-in and a sense of ownership on both sides. and on the rare cases we have seen that work. the committee process today in the united states senate is a shadow of what it used to be. thereby marginalizing and reducing the influence to every single member of the senate on both sides of the aisle. major legislation is a part of the majority leader's conference room and then dropped on the floor with little or no member opportunities virtually guaranteeing this is a fight. and there is a lot of empty talk around here about the corrosive influence of partisanship.

and if you really want to do something about it you should support a more robust committee process. and those who go through the committee and if republicans are fortunate enough to gain the majority next year, that will be done. the bill should come to the floor and be debated. we have an example of that going on right now. and that includes a robust amendment process. in my view there is too much paranoia about the other side around here.

what are we afraid of? because both sides have taken liberties and abused privileges. but the answer is not to provoke even more. the answer is to let those debate this. let the folks debate and let the senate work its will. that means bringing bills to the floor and having a free and open amendment process that is part of the legislature. that is what we used to do here. and that is exactly the way this place operated just a few years ago. the democratic majority leader likes to say that if you don't want to fight fire, do not become a fireman. if you don't want to cast votes, do not come to the senate. and i guess he has not said that

lately. and when we used to be in the majority in order to get the bill across the floor and got to pass a lot of those and you know, we did it in people groaned about it and complained about it in the sun came up the next day. and everyone felt like they were a part of this process. senator dick durbin was right about that when he senate. and i think it is time to allow the senators on both sides to fully participate in the legislative process. that means having a more open amendment process around here and as i said, it requires us to cast votes that we would rather not cast. but we are all grown-ups.

and there's rarely ever a vote that you can cast around here that is fatal. and the irony of it all is that that process makes it a lot less contentious. and it's a lot less contentious and you vote on tough issues and when you don't and when you are not allowed to do that, everyone is just angry at being denied the opportunity to do what you are sent to do, which is to represent the people that elected you and offer ideas that you think are worth considering. we had a meeting and the senator was just talking about how there were 13 amendments that people on the side of the islet like to offer on this bill all on the subject and it's important to each senator who felt that there was a better way to improve the

bill that is on the floor right now. but i expect that that expected that opportunity would not be allowed because one person was allowed to get prior recognition and could pick our amendments for eyes and decide which are okay and which are not. and i remember the late ted cd bins telling a story about when he got here. senator mansfield tried to offer an amendment and the gentleman who is managing the bill prevents the day. they took his amendment and went back to his desk and sent it to the floor for him.

and that was part of the senate not too long ago. and if someone is allowed to get a vote on something they believe in, of course they are going to retaliate. and of course they are going to retaliate. if they get a vote every once in a while, they do not feel the need to. voting on amendments is good for the senate. and it's good for the country and our constituents should have a greater voice in the process. and since july of last year there have been four republican roll call votes and the whole second half of 2013, members on this side of the aisle have for

roll call votes. that is today's senate. and so let me say that. but the republicans are fortunate enough to be in the majority next year, the amendments will be allowed. the senators will be respected. we will not make an attempt to rein controversy out of a constitution that expects demand and approves a great debate about the problems confronting the country. in a common refrain from democrats as republicans blocked

bills before ever coming to the floor. what they fail to mention, of course, is that often we have done is because we have been shut out of the process word has been made pretty clear that they don't need an amendment. which is in all likelihood part of what we are talking about. we already knew that it was shaping up to be a partisan exercise and would not have any meaningful input at all. and is a good for our constituents? doesn't lead to a better product? all it leads to is a lot more acrimony. and so if republicans had just won the white house and had a 60 vote majority in the senate, we

would be tempted to empty this out as well. but you cannot spend two years in senior outbox and then complaining about this. give the other side a say. it has never been the rules, the senators from both parties have in the past revered and defended this during our nation's darkest hours. and the real problem is the attitude that views the senate as an assembly line for one partisan legislative agenda rather than as a place to solve national problems. we have become far too focused on making a point instead of

making a difference. making a point instead of making good and stable law. we have gotten too comfortable with doing everything that we do here through the next election and everyone suffers as a result. the turning point came during the final years of the bush administration when they held vote after vote on bills that he would not pass. and i am not saying that republicans have never staged a vote when we were in the majority. i'm not saying i don't even enjoy a good messaging vote from time to time. but you have to wonder if that is all you are doing, you have to wonder why you are here. it has become entirely too routine. and it diminishes the senate.

i don't care what part you are in. you came here to legislate and make a difference for your constituents. yet it seems more like a campaign studio and a serious legislative body and both have said and done things over the past two years it would probably wish that we had in. but we probably can improve the way that we do business and we can be more constructive and we can work through our differences and we can do things that need to be done. but there will have to be major changes if we are going to get there. the process must be restored. and we need to have an open amendment also. and finally, let me suggest that we must learn how to put in a decent week's work.

most americans do not work three days per week. they would be astonished to find out that is about it around here area and how about the power of the clock. the only way we could have our say would be to work through art tensions and disputes is that we are here more. and not too long ago and many of you will remember this. thursday night was the main event around here. and there is a huge incentive. and so it is amazing how it works.

even the most eager among us have a long list of those that are good for the country, maybe 10 or 12 around noon on thursday. down and it is amazing how the consent would be reached when the fatigue set in. and all it took was for the majority leader who was in charge of the agenda to say that we know that it is important in the bipartisan support is part of the committee and we want to have an open amendment process and we can finish on thursday afternoon. or thursday night or friday morning. so whatever happened to the fatigue factor to bring things to a close? the amendments voluntarily go away. but important ones still get

offered and everyone feels like they have a chance to be involved in the process no matter what side of the isle they are armed. especially with bipartisan support and then passing it. we almost never do that anymore. almost never. and on those occasions we work late but sometimes well into the morning. and i know that sounds quaint because people haven't been around here very long. but it actually works. and there is nothing wrong with staying up a little later and drawing a conclusion. i can remember the majority leader when he was whipped and walking around late at night making sure that he had enough votes to do whatever he wanted to do. and when you finish one of those

debates, you end up voting for the bill are voting against it and you didn't have the feeling that unless you chose to go away with your man meant that you had been given the opportunity to participate and be a part of the process and actually make a difference for your constituents. and that is how you reach the consensus by working and talking and that is the way everyone's patience is worn down and everyone can agree on a result even if they don't vote for in the end using the clock is the greatest proof of that and the republicans are in the majority next year as well. and everyone gets an opportunity to work harder and get results.

restoring the committee process and allowing the senators to speak for an open amendment process extending the work week in just a few things that the senate could and should do differently. none of it would guarantee this and there's nothing wrong with the partisan debate because it's good for the country. and none of it will cause us to change our principles or our views about what is right and wrong with our country and partisanship itself is not the problem. but the real problem has been a growing lack with the senate's ability to mediate the tensions and disputes that we have always had around here. there are many reasons that some have lost that confidence and ultimately both parties have to assume some of the blame. but we cannot be content to leave it at that. for the good of the country we need to work together to restore

this institution. america's strength and resilience is dependent on the challenges of our day and sometimes that means changing the rules when it's warranted. so when the majority leader decided a few weeks back that the bipartisan opposition to what happened in november by changing the rules that govern this for the majority, he broke something. he broke something. but our response cannot be to sit back and accept the demise of the senate. this body has survived mistakes and excesses before and even after some of the worst it has found a way to spring back. and to be at the place where even the starkest differences and disputes are washed up by

mutual respect and it is during times of the greatest polarization that it is most clearly talked about. so let me wrap it up this way. we are all familiar with lyndon johnson's rain around here. robert caro has given us that story in great detail. and some look at lbj with a kind of mastery and that is the way that some look at it. personally i have believed that the leader that replaced him was a better fit for this place and evidently so did johnson's colleagues who elected mansfield upon his department which was given with overwhelming enthusiasm and they had had it up to here with lbj and they were excited that he was gone

and this includes the reports that he was going to ask as a de facto majority leader even though he was now the vice president. that was unenthusiastically received and he was almost thrown out never to return. mansfield was enthusiastically chosen to replace him. so now the chronicles of the life and legacy usually leave out what i just told you. but by the time he left the senate as i indicated they had had enough writer to hear. in the moment they had a chance to be delivered they took it.

mike mansfield would see that the senate greater cooperation and freedom this includes someone who gives us a clue. there are many well-known stories about the fairness and equanimity as leader. and that was his unbending beliefs that every single senator was equal. and that was his operating mode with every single senator to be equal. and he acted that way on a daily basis and conducted himself on away on a daily basis. the unending belief that every senator should be treated as an

equal. and so both sides will have to work to get us back to where we should be. and it's not going to happen overnight heard we haven't had much practice slavery. it's like we are completely out of practice with doing what i just suggested to get us back to normal. but it is a goal that i believe that we can have and strive towards together and it takes this and this is a behavioral problem. we need to act differently with each other and respect the committee's out there and have an open amendment process and work a little harder and none of that requires a rule change.

because restoring this institution is the only way that we shall ever solve the challenges that we face. that is the lesson of history and that the lesson of experience. we would all be wise to hear this and i now yield the floor. >> senate majority leader harry lou reed responded to remarks by senator mcconnell. this is 20 minutes. >> mr. president, the republican leader in i do not agree on everything. but we do agree on some things in the one thing that no one can dispute that we agree on and that is our love of baseball. we both love baseball and we have an opportunity when we go home to turn on the tv and watch a few winnings of baseball.

for some this is a slow opportunity to watch this. but we have talked about baseball and we have a great affection for it. and the reason i mention that is today we have a great baseball hero, one of the greatest of all time to be conducted in the baseball hall of fame. he is an extremely nice man and a man of humility and i have gone out to dinner with him and his lovely wife a few times and i know his brother well who is also a professional baseball player. and he's the first to talk about

averages. i am not a great athlete. but one of the best of all-time, he started his career with the chicago cubs and he went on to win 355 professional major league baseball games in four consecutive awards. today he received almost 90%, which is the second-highest tally. so this good man, i congratulate him and i repeat he is a man of humility and a man who has probably the greatest control of the history of baseball being able to throw a ball and he's not a big man and that is an understatement. but he was precise with where he

could throw the baseball. and i have such great memories of him. it is kind of a hard election that i have. so i called him on his cell phone and i said greg, would you come and he said i will do that. and i said that would be doing and he said i'm playing golf. he said if you leave me alone i can break 70. so i have great affection for him as well as his family and this is one thing that i am sure that senator mcconnell and i agree upon. mr. president, this afternoon a republican leader came with the ability to offer amendments. to offer them on the three

months extension in the for this party. and it is interesting during the leader's remark there wasn't another word about jobs or unemployment compensation or the economy. so it is very clear when i am here today with my republican colleagues to republican republican leaders came and sat here with me. and it is impossible for my republican colleagues to explain to the american people the callous opposition in the pledge of 1.3 million americans, about 20,000 of them within that in two very fine senators had this legislation as well. jack reed of rhode island, who

is tied with nevada and the other senator is my friend, the republican senator from nevada. dean heller. the republicans, they want to talk about what was evidenced by what went on here this afternoon. in america today, mr. president, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. and the middle class is being squeezed. and during the last 30 years the top 1% in wealth and income was increased by triple numbers so

what has happened to the middle class? tripling their going down 10% and so they don't want to talk about this and that is what it planned to vote against the extension with the emergency unemployment insurance benefits. last voted for them to have a debate and some said that we should have a debate and a debate we are having. we are looking for a distraction and a diversion to steal attention away from their on the issues that matter most to the middle class. ..