could run organizations confident that someone will not come in and second-guess them on the facts and circumstances that they've been operating under. >> we certainly need clarification but i would also strongly urged a very clear understanding of the freedoms of americans, that just because so is part of a nonprofit organization they have not waived their first amendment rights, and that is a tremendous threat that the irs has in my opinion no business interfering with and that is a deep concern. concern. >> i agree with you. ..

noted in my testimony in 2013 as a result of spending and information technology the information technology business, modernization problem for the irs was taken of the high-risk list having been there for 14 years. it was proven in the i t area that if we have the funding we can make significant progress. >> is great for the i t area but other areas need to be addressed and 25 years is far too long. time to put some teeth into it. >> i now recognize the gentleman from florida for five minutes. >> commissioner koskinen, a year ago the senior irs leaders and

learned lois lerner's hard drive had crashed. there was an issue about getting her e-mails off of backup tapes, you wrote a letter to senate finance in june of 2014 saying there were problems with her e-mails and backup tapes had been destroyed. and on june 20th you testified before the ways and means committee, went to great lengths and made extraordinary efforts to recover lower as lerner's e-mail please let me ask you this, after the irs began aware of the hard drive had crashed what specific steps did the irs take to locate any backup tapes or disaster recovery takes? >> disaster recovery takes a recorded over when they are no longer usable. cabarrus tech -- no technique or capacity in the irs to retrieve e-mails off of that. and the custody lists at that point, 80 different people that

low was lerner would have been communicating with because we already produced all but e-mails that were relevant to determination, trying to respond to all. we looked those 82 and took every e-mail to or from lois lerner against e-mails -- >> and the backup tapes, you made the judgment that they simply were not going to be recoverable or did you take somebody investigate whether you could have backup tapes or find some backup tapes? >> our experts said there was no way they were not recoverable. it has taken six months of round-the-clock nt hasn't gotten -- produce we don't know how many there are but my position is we helped them find what the point case where that had been recorded over from that time. if he could find more e-mails that would be terrific and i mean that seriously because it would win even more light than the 24,000 we already produced

into what were in those e-mails in that timeframe. >> but what would he find it you can't? you said you went to extraordinary lengths. >> when we discovered this in this dream and reported it in june six weeks later with a couple weeks thereafter the ig started the investigation so we had no more time and if we started today, i don't know how much money they are spending but it has taken six months to recover whatever they're going to recover. we don't have that capacity. >> did the irs ever collect any tapes or send back take 24 and sick lad in your investigation of the people you detail to this? were any case recovered or sent to a lab by the irs? >> no. >> who told you the backup tapes would not yield any e-mails from lois lerner's crashed hard drive? >> i was told that it information technology

department. >> you know the basis of that statement? did you inquire height they could be sure of that? >> the disaster recovery takes, when they keep them for six months when it is done the reuse them and record over them and if you ever had tapes when you record over them in the normal process the data underneath them is gone and i was told we had no capacity and no way to recover those and they were not sure there was any way to recover them. >> as the irs communicated with larry and her attorneys about the e-mails for many of her crashed hard drive? >> i have had no communication about this at all. i never met her. >> in the course of the i r s's response to this investigation has the irs withheld any information or documents from congress on any other basis of the then 16-one 03?

>> we had some we asked to review on camera, and personal matters that had nothing to do with the investigation. and exercise no privilege keep anything from you, we continue to respond to the requests and continued to provide any information we confined. >> your response to the request from this committee have been above and beyond what is required in this situation? >> we have an obligation to provide it and we have done that. anytime you want to -- >> extraordinary efforts above and beyond? >> when we discovered the crash than it was my decision that we needed to do whatever we could to do that and we found 20,000 e-mails and my understanding, it doesn't tell us a lot of stuff about this, the ig may find another 10,000 laws lerner e-mails.

>> final question is you made the effort you were not cavalier about this you made the effort to find what the committee wanted. is that your testimony? >> that is my testimony. >> the gentleman from south carolina. >> thank you. the book of ecclesiastes teaches us there's a time and season for everything and you convinced me earlier this evening this is not the time to question mr. koskinen. he was here 40 a o related testimony and not irs. i don't know whether he is prepared for the questions or not. will not find out because you have agreed at some point he will come back before the committee and i was wondering if the chairman might engage in a colloquy with me to make sure my chronology is correct. i thought the last time commissioner koskinen was in front of us there was a robust discussion about the time period with in which he was going to

produce e-mails anti asked us to narrow the scope so he could prioritize and get as those e-mails we have asked for and as the chairman will recall we need those e-mails because the e-mails we have from lois lerner contain such tools as lamenting gop wins celebrating democrat wins, forecasting gloom and doom if the gop god forbid ever controlled the senate, saying we needed a plan to overcome citizens united those were just some of the e-mails that i recall, mr. chairman and after commissioner koskinen told us he would prioritize production of those e-mails, they magically disappear and the irs of course mr. chairman, employed herculean

efforts to recovers those e-mails they were not successful. after the election, they did appear at some point and now we are reading that 500 of those e-mails will not be made available due to the invocation of a privilege mr. chairman what privilege the white house is relying upon to not produce those documents to congress? >> i do not. >> the president had an opportunity to review those 500 documents. >> good question. >> do you think there is a chance that his conclusion that not a smidgen of corruption exists in this investigation might be altered if he had an opportunity to review what is in those documents? >> certainly. >> will you consider inviting mr. koskinen back to update us

on this chronology? >> yes indeed. >> mr. koskinen commissioner, i won't question you today because the hearings title was something else but at some point we can go back where we left off which was an insurance from you that you were going to prioritize e-mail productions and i hope that some point we can evaluate the refusal to turn over documents to congress, invocation and privilege and because of his service on judiciary and oversight. this administration has invoked executive privilege before, only for us to learn that privilege was invoked to protect and e-mail that the attorney general sent to his wife. under what theory of executive privilege is that e-mail protected? i hope by live long enough to

see the production of those e-mails and i hope will live long enough to see the commissioner come back before us. with that. >> the gentleman yields. >> could i make one clarification? during the course of the document production, the treasury department turned over all the laws lerner e-mails and the white house made a representation they had no lois lerner e-mails. in terms of that process and this committee issued a report in december noting that there was no evidence that anyone outside the irs, whether it was the white house or treasury had any impact or influence over the improper use of criteria for determination process so i don't know what the documents over in there, there was litigation around the inspector general investigating communications but that is not a case between s&p irs, is not a party to is that. >> that is why i directed my question to the chairman but if

you would like us to have this conversation, do you understand why congress wants bose e-mails? can you understand as a trained attorney why we might want access to all the documents. >> my and standing was the -- they certified nomo is their e-mails and gave you all the laws lerner e-mails. they have more occasions. this is my sixth appearance before the committee and i look forward to the seventh and i will be delighted to give you an update and i will be delighted if the inspector general can ever complete his work. six months to produce those e-mails. all of us will learn to be totally supportive. if there are e-mails that can be done and by random public pressure has been able to find them that will be a major step forward and i will discuss that with you. >> you can appreciate our

cynicism and skepticism because it appears as if sometimes the strategy is just too and delay and of bcu kate and wait and wait until the public loses interest or until there is the new administration. i know you can appreciate our desire to have those documents sooner rather from later. >> i thoroughly understand that. i thank the gentleman. >> the gentleman's time is expired. recognize myself. i have not had a chance to ask questions and i would like to remind my colleagues why we are here. the five of you are very presentable. you put a happy face on a difficult situation but here's the reality. 25 years in a row, these problems of come before congress, 25 years in a row. this is the all-star team of problems. that is the reality. you can put lipstick on this but

the reality is it is ugly. to get on this list you have to be engaged in waste fraud and abuse in excess of $1 billion by year. to get off of the list it is not easy but the criteria for getting off the list, leadership commitment, agency capacity, you have to have an action plan. you have to be monitoring efforts and show progress. that seems like a reasonable five sets of criteria you can accomplish. the scorecard, 25 years in a row, you fail to meet those -- hit the criteria on those five and consequently that is why we are highlighting this. i think you are well intentioned and very talented individuals but the massive bureaucracy within the organization you represent here today is failing

to meet these modest goals. that is so frustrating. things are going to pop up. 25 years and a row is not good enough. i heard you were making measurable progress. would news to report. i am sorry. you don't have good news to report. the bad news is you are back again. we don't want to keep having these hearings. we want to show the progress and i do appreciate the good men and women who spend untold number of hours and literally years going through the details of what is happening within these departments and agencies. as a follow what. i don't expect you to know this off the top of your head. one of my concerns is who is held accountable? who actually is held accountable? we ask that the beginning one of

our members asked a good question has anybody ever been fired? has anybody been fired, dismissed, transferred by not meeting these goals? we have thousands of good quality people who work for the federal government. these are employees who wake up, patriotic work hard trying to do their best but somehow some way in the five areas it has fallen down. we are not achieving the goals. the criteria put forward by the gao doesn't mean you had to solve this. some of these are esteban, clique large. we are talking hundreds of billions of dollars. and the problems in waste, fraud

and abuse going out the door through h h s. that wiped out the deficit right there, those two things, it was not easily done. the waste, fraud and abuse and the people who work hard, pay their taxes and do everything they can and hundreds of billions of dollars going out either not collected or going out erroneously and waste and fraud and abuse 2500 bucks to mean something in their lives and the numbers are so big, i do not understand why the five that are highlighted here the department of defense, why you can't hit those five goals and according to the g a o, like the medicare program, they only met one of the five goals four partially on the two be cody

programs, not one of the five criteria four are partially met. the department of energy, one partially met when fully met, three not met at all. 25 years in a row. i don't want to have this same hearing at the beginning of next congress. i want you to solve it. the committee would like to know and hear from you how are you going to do that? how are you going to do that? difficult for you to answer but i am telling you you are painting a pretty picture that is not so pretty. we want to see what it is, what is the actual plan action plan. but that is the bowl and that is my concern and with that i want to yield back. any members who wish to ask a second round of questions? the gentleman from ohio.

>> i appreciate the chair's indulgence. i put out these lines again, mr. koskinen. i want -- >> it was agreed by congress, we will have a hearing about this, that we will not -- >> i fully expect that. >> i am happy to ask more questions. >> the american people want to know why the internal revenue service violated fundamental rights. we appreciate your willingness to ask the american people. that is awfully big of you. >> we have another hearing on this and we had five already but i am happy to answer the question. >> still don't have the truth as evidenced by the headline yesterday, the mainstream press can't get the documents they requested. >> the documents they're requesting from us. >> they derive from unlawful activity. that is the point. that is something you have to understand. as much power as you do to have that attitude is what frustrates

not just members of this committee but all kinds of americans. that is the problem. let's go back to this. i want to know something. this is what you told me when i asked you when did you learn you could not get all her e-mails he learned in april? all right? you learned in april, let's go to the next slide. the letter you sent to senate finance telling them in june you sent this letter telling them you use the word confirmed, no backup tapes, the backup tapes no longer exist so i want to know between april, when you learned and june, when you told the congress and the american people what you did to confirm that those tapes didn't exist, which we now know do exist. what did you do to confirm that

the tainted to exist? >> i talked to our i t people who told me when the tapes were finished with their six months they were used and then destroy it and as far as they were concerned there was no way, we had no capacity even if we know where they were how to extract e-mails from the man they still haven't completed the process. >> that is all you did? you asked your i t people? was it a long conversation? did you ask one question? >> i asked about how the backup disaster recovery process worked. >> the word confirmed is based on one conversation you had with itt people? >> those are the experts. they told me there is no way those tapes could be found or use. if they were used -- >> that is all you did? >> that is all i did. >> really? an issue where repeated lies from lois lerner, false

statements given by doug schoen, the unprecedented fashion where you release the data ahead of the inspector general's report, with the plan in question that you already tipped off the treasury and white house about and all you do to confirm, you lost the most important documents from the most important person in the center of the scandal all you do is ask a question of the itt will? >> we spent six weeks looking at the hard drives and documents for 82 people to produce 24,000 more bowls lerner e-mails. that was what we did. >> one conversation you had to confirm you lost valuable documents from the central figure in this scandal. who was the person u.s. the question to? give us the name. >> would have been steve manning, senior i t guy. i asked could we find where the stakes are? and we decided what we could do was what we did do we looked at all of the e-mails to and from lois lerner from 80 people and produce 20 -- >> i focus on the word you used,

confirmed. one conversation with one mighty guy that turned out not to be true. here is the big picture. your chief counselor came in february, you had problems with lois lerner's e-mails. you learned in april and you didn't tell us until june. from february to june you learned there were big problems and all you do to confirm that there are big problems is one question to your it guy. about some of their rights were violated the >> out of time to get 20,000 e-mails which was at that time we thought the most we could do, best we could do, we thought was an extraordinary effort to go back through that to use the additional 24,000 e-mails which apparently don't have much interest in them because -- >> one conversation mr. chairman with an eye tee guy and he writes u.s. congress and tells the american people we have lost lois lerner's e-mails and then, one last question, mr.

koskinen, when did you learn that they found these tapes and could recover her e-mail? >> i haven't learned yet they could recover. i learned we helped them find they went through the system and our people helped them find by the early part of late july or early august they thought they found tapes from that. >> so literally a month after -- in july and early august, after you said reconfirm backup tapes no longer exist, you had a backup tapes? >> take up with our people. >> that you confirm to didn't exist? >> exactly right. >> oh my goodness. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. the ranking member. >> listening to all of this how to move forward. you have been on the list for 25

years, a long time. administration after administration and at some point charlie duke get off of this merry-go-round. one of the things that i noticed after being here for 18 years now is there is a tendency, i think it was mr. goudy who said it or somebody up there, wait for another administration or another congress and then we recycle the same problems. my question is very simple to each of you, if you had a magic wand and you could get this done. what would you do to get yourself off of the list.

what does it take? if you were us what would you do to get you off the list or to have a kind of accountability that the chairman talked about? i got to agree with him. we are better than this and we're just going round and round, losing hundreds of billions of dollars, we are wasting a lot of time and as it is very frustrating. and i just believe -- are we too big to have accountability? is it that we are too big to be able to say okay this is how it is supposed to be done and we are going to do it this way and we're going to do it in any effective and efficient manner? you may all feel that the questions are unfair and tough,

so i am going to turn the table and once you tell us if you were us what would we have you do so that you get off of the list so that we can be accountable? mr. williams, you have such a wonderful smile. >> thank you for your question. first of all, the point i would make with respect to the department of energy and to the chairman's comment is we have made progress, but the gao is essentially focusing on half a dozen large capital projects where we have had repeated problems so there is no effort on our part to claim success on that and we welcome your oversight and oversight of g a o. what success we have had is in projects below 750 i won't well on those but i will point out in

the department, in the nsa in the last three years, 7% below budget and on time we had other large projects recently such as the national synchrotron project coming in on budget. the problems that we have which are systemic are in large capital projects which tend to be the nuclear project which are among the most complex projects in the world. therefore what we are trying to focus on our structural changes so that they last past -- someone like me testifying before you for a couple years, we have tried to create a much improved esap a risk improvement committee, that committee is meant to create enterprise wide dialogue and challenged by all the project members across the program so that we can avoid future problems like this and hopefully get to the bottom of the problems that we have.

the last thing i would mention is both of you talked about accountability. that is a significant issue at the department of energy. when everybody is in charge of the project no one is in charge. that is why as i mentioned during the year, the secretary has mandated, we have to have a defined owner to the chairman's question every person who is accountable when things don't go correctly. >> a solution to this issue. mr. cummings and i have chatted. what we would like to do is send each of you a letter and request that you respond in a 30 day period what is your plan? show us your game plan and what you need to do to accomplish that plan. does anybody have an objection to that?

is that fair? does anybody have an objection to that? we meet the 30 daytime light of recent you a letter this week? this is -- this has been a long hearing, you have been patient taking your time here. that is what we will do. we will send a bipartisan letter and ask you to respond within 30 days, show us your game plan and we will go from here and most of the people here are good hard-working patriotic people but we are failing them and if we don't address and put a plan in place we will be back here again and don't ever want to do that. the committee will stand adjourned. [inaudible conversations] >> to date the house foreign affairs committee holds a hearing on the threat posed by isis. this comes one day after

president obama requested authorization to use military force against isis. you can see the hearing live starting at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. national counterterrorism center director nicholas rasmussen testifies before the senate committee on intelligence. we have live coverage of his testimony at 2:30 eastern on our companion network c-span3. >> this sunday on q&a film maker thomas allen harris explores how african-americans have been portrayed in photographic images from the time of slavery through today. >> it is based in many ways on the work of douglas willis. aground breaking book about black photographers very much aware of this other narrative that was going on as well in

which black people were constructed post slavery and even before the end of slavery as something other than human and it was part of the marketing of photographs and memorabilia that and stereotypes that now would be considered and pleasant but now in terms of the way we invite ourselves and the way we might see others. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span q&a. >> louisiana governor bobby jindal was in favor of harming the ukrainian government to defend itself against russia and education reform and questions about his political aspirations in this event hosted by the christian science monitor. it is about an hour.

>> thanks for coming. i am david cook, the moderator. we welcome governor bobby jindal who has been with us twice the force in september of last year. got off to a fast start in life son of immigrants, graduated from bonn university at age 20 with degrees in biology and public policy and studied at oxford as a rhodes scholar and turned down acceptances to harvard medical school and yale law. after working for mckinsey and company at age 24 our guest the game head of louisiana's 13,000 employees department of health and hospitals and 27 became executive director of the national bipartisan commission on the future of medicare. then came a two huge floor at

the university of louisiana system that led to president bush nominated him as assistant secretary of health and human services. the race for governor in 2003, he was elected to congress in 1956. you, was the governor of louisiana in 2007, 36 the youngest in the nation at the time and was reelected with 66% of the vote in october of 2013. the governor and his wife, three young children and a biographical portion of the program, now on to the ritual recitation of ground rules, always on the record here, no live bloging or tweeting of any kind when the practice is underway to give us time to listen to what our guest says. there is no embargo when the session is over. to help resist that urge we will e-mail several pictures of the

session to all reporters here as soon as the breakfast ends as regular attendees no, do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal. call on one and all in the time available. i start by offering our guests the opportunity to make opening comments and move to questions around the table and with that thanks for doing this, the floor is yours. thank you all. >> thank you for letting me speak to you again. is it changing sign of the times. i was at a hotel jim this morning, no cellphones allowed, no pictures, there was an exception, only selfys are allowed. the compulsion to take a selfy, and previously we release other papers, like energy and health to become more energy independent on foreign policy and investing in our defense as well as on repealing and

replacing obamacare. i am here with our fourth paper talking about a-12, there are many reasons we should be worried about education. the status of education in our country. if america were to close the gap from where we are over the next several years we could add trillions of dollars to our economy. there was a report from stanford university about the fact of we had better teachers in our classrooms, a more effective teacher can literally improve the average earning power of a student in the classroom by thousands of dollars over their lifetimes and that is showing better teachers can do things like increase average earnings and reduce teenage pregnancy rate and increase the odds those children later go to college. there are many reasons we should all be worried about this and many statistics showing america lags behind many other developed countries on many international

comparisons. there was a time the educational system was the envy of the world as there was a time when making model teens in the subway line was the envy of the world's. as the manufacturing sector and other sectors adopted and changed. and no longer makes sense to approach education from a top-down, 1-size-fits-all factory based approach. is not fair to our students or economy or country and i make the argument i i give in this paper is not just economic reasons to care about education. there are thought what this can do for the economy but the reality is for a self-governing republic is important to teach the next generation to be informed educated citizens. the ability to make decisions for themselves and the ability to make decisions with a vote for the rest of us. it is not just economics but there's a moral imperative why we should care about education being offered in our country.

we offer three main themes in terms of how to improve education and i will say this. we had the quality of opportunity if education in america, it sounds good and we like to believe the circumstances of your birth don't determine your outcomes as an adult but it is not true. if anything we have today in effect a reverse means tested approach to education. if you are a wealthy you are likely to move to neighborhoods with great schools or have the ability to save the dollars you need to send kids to private schools. is disproportionately low-income families prompting failing schools that don't have those opportunities to build a greater education, that is absolutely critical. if we are and ask for regional society with the circumstances of your breasts don't determine your outcomes as an adult is critical, the biggest obstacles to changing that is the democratic party. they like to say they care about education and are for

educational opportunity but the reality is they are standing on the schoolhouse for stopping children from access to a great education and argue this is largely because they have been bought and paid for by teachers' unions. they have been opposed to basic concepts like school police, like allowing the dollar did tell the students instead of making students follow the dollars. three feet main themes, more parent choice where parents have more options. we argued there is one silver bullet. it may be a child will benefit from a charter school, private school, public school, on line schooling, dual enrollment, every child is different so let's allow parents to make the best decisions for their sons and daughters. they know the needs of their children best. there's fierce resistance to this it and we document the union leader in louisiana who said parents don't have a clue when it comes to making choices for their kids. i find this offensive and the opposite of the approach we need if we are going to change and improve education. secondly we say we need to

empower teachers. one of the most important determinants to the child's education in a classroom is quality of teachers. we have high barriers to entry and lower barriers to attention. the exact opposite of what we need to be doing when it comes to putting a teacher in every classroom. lower barriers to entry, higher barriers to retention and we need to move away from union dominated scales of paying and hiring and firing that are rewarding teachers based on how long their breeding instead of how well they're doing. the data showing what a great teacher can do to improve prospects for a student and we all remember the great features that made a difference in our lives, there are things we can do to encourage reward and recruit the best professionals and teachers in classrooms third and finally we need to take power away from the federal government, restore these decisionsmaking authorities to the local and state governments

and there are a variety of ways to do that. we talk about three cause -- reauthorization, and no child left behind and other values, and buildings, a brick and mortar programs and education should be about the students at the close to moving power from the federal government and that is the debate about common core. it makes no sense at the top down approach to testing of the curriculum, it makes no sense to leave folks in d.c. no better than parents and teachers and local leaders. when people were opposed to common core to dismiss opponents as conservative right wing critics and you saw more teachers criticized common core and is a third group the parents. it is not a common core debate, the more people are exposed to

how the math is talked about in common core the idea for the first time the federal government will make curriculum decisions made at the local level, and demanding that it be taken out of the classrooms. and a stop violating the tenth amendment and other federal laws to force common core and local schools and local parents and to me it is not just about repealing common core and the next direction, against the next version of federal takeover of curriculum and content. eyewall for high standards. many people that try to advocate common core argue if you are against common core you must be against standards. i think that is ridiculous. you can be for high standards parent choice, less government control, and powering great teachers. this is what we need to do to improve education in our country. it is important for our economy. it is important for the quality of our public to have a

self-governing citizenry that is able to make those decisions. we have a lot of data in this report. new orleans experience, louisiana experience, my time is up so i will leave that to the questions but for those if we don't get to is that, i encourage you to look through the report, there are several statistics and studies showing the benefits of choice and what it can do to improve quality of the child's education and with that i will stop. >> i will do one or two and we will go to cathy hunt, susan page, amy walter, mark shields david drucker to start. let me ask you about education. isn't it a bit ironic for you to be in washington talking about education given the way you cut education spending in louisiana? there were two quite tough budget pieces by politico and the new york times talking about a variety of budget issues and one of the things they mention

was the center on budget and policy priorities as your cuts to public colleges and universities have been the deepest in any state over the last eight years on the paris student basis, a thousand full-time faculty members. is there some irony in talking about ramping up education when you are cutting it in louisiana. >> it has gone up under the m f p since i have been elected $3.1 billion in my first year in 2008 $3.6 billion this year. we have not cut k-12 education, on a per student basis we increased teacher salaries. the total higher education, it is slightly higher k-12 education, the reality is this. just like other states during the great recession we face an issue of what to do with

declining revenue. we also cut taxes, income tax cuts, we made the decision we were going to cut state spending and not raise taxes, as a result. our budget is $9 billion when i took office, 26% smaller, 31,000 fewer state employees, the fewest state employees we had in decades and we have also seen eight credit upgrades, strongest credit rating we have seen in decades and private sector economy is strong earth and it has been in a generation. since i have been governor when you look at it, job growth is three times the national average economic growth is two times the national average. we have got literally $60 billion over 90,000 jobs in the pipeline from private sector firms so we made a conscious decision to cut government spending but also to grow the private sector economy. we talk about higher education specifically we have seen increases or retention in graduation rates, highest right to wage rates we have ever seen

so you also see good things happening, we invest from last year increase in higher education funding last year to this year over $100 million, over $40 million investment in the why is fund. in part to meet the growing need for skilled workers in the economies of we made a conscious decision to cut spending, cut taxes and grow the private sector economy. >> one other education question, the national journal talked to jeb bush after a speech in detroit and one of the topics was education and the governor said 13,174 government run school systems is not the appropriate model of governance for this incredibly diverse group of kids who comprise the next generation of americans. i know you don't want the government controlling curriculum. the think there is need for some consistency about academic expectations and standards that the united states wants to compete with other nations like china? >> that is a great segway and it

is fascinating. this is an important topic that has come up quite a bit. i do talk about the fact the pendulum has swung too far where we are so obsessed with testing it seems like the pretest and a pre pretest, you hear from teachers and parents and students that what you see is a crowding out of social studies music, art and other subjects in our classrooms. let's remember and understand the testing rose for a legitimate reason. there is legitimate concern that you had many poor students and others being left behind, not getting access to a great education and we were concerned about social promotion without mastering the year's worth of material. the pendulum has swung too far the day. we still call for it, public tax dollars involved, whether that is private school choice programs or public schools or other options we do say that we see and understand the need for annual testing so there is transparency so parents can make

meaningful choices that have accountability but two things can be changed. we call for benchmarking. there is always that has been done before to compare a variety of tests and with a student is taking one test you can measure and know how the student does compared to other states and other countries without the exact same test in every classroom. that is important, many private schools are accustomed to using other tests instead of insisting everybody has to use the same identical test, benchmarking and other types of methods we allow for more value tests. and more aggressive waivers and flexibilities for schools that are performing well. if you have a school that shows they have done well, why not allow them to get waivers? if they want to use other measures to show their students are learning instead of this 1-size-fits-all approach to testing yet there needs to be accountability but i am calling for much more diversity in

addressing parents. the ultimate accountability measures giving parents good information. in our state we give the grade schools a-half. right now accountability systems are so complicated that parents can meaningfully understand how well their schools are doing or how well their students or child's classroom is doing is much simpler for parents to know if their child is getting a great education or not some accountability, and also more choice more diversity, more competition, not 1-size-fits-all approach. >> if a republican presidential candidate supports common core should conservative voters view that as a disqualifying to them seeking the nomination? >> i think it will be a good debate have. i don't think d.c. insiders should pick our candidate for a say who could or should run. if republican voters want to vote for a candidate that supports common core they will have that option and it may have

multiple options which i suspect if a voter wants to the against common core they will have that option. this is a good debate or discussion in a republican primary and general election. what is the proper role of federal government. to we want to see more federal involvement in classrooms? you will see that debate in common core and see that debate in the reauthorization of no child left behind and the amount and type of funding delivered to tidal one in the interventions funding should be delivered. block granted affordable, we talk about a fat cat model where dollars intended to benefit students a especially students with special education and other students as well follow the student into the classroom, that is not happening because it is a complicated formula and security based, how many times schools that disproportionately teach kids with special needs of disadvantaged backgrounds or needing a technical education all of which are factors that are supposed to result in more funding don't always get those extra dollars but the bottom-line question go back to the common core it will be

healthy for the party and the country if voters get to vote for candidates they want not against if they have diversity in views and this is an important issue in the republican primary and general election, what is the role of federal government to do we trust bureaucrats in d.c. or parents and local officials to make these decisions? i am on the side of trusting local parents, local teachers and local officials, trucking competition, not thinking that better to have a group of bureaucrats in d.c. making these decisions for us. >> to follow up on his question, do you think jeb bush is delectable in the republican primary with his support for common core? angela merkel is meeting at the white house with the president. i am wondering if you think the united states should on the ukrainians? >> whether somebody is electable or not is up to the voters. 2% risen in the margin of error which means nobody knew me

including my mom and life which i found hard to believe. i don't worry about polling, but the point is it is not up to the expert for the political consultant for fund-raisers to decide who gets to run and if governor bush were to become a candidate i am sure he would be happy to make the case for his views on the electorate from common core or other issues. as for me if i were to run one of the issues i would look at would be not only this issue of common core, i am for the repeal of getting out of classrooms but also -- there's not another iteration more federal intrusion in local classrooms. not only is it getting rid of common core but also saying why grant dollars to the states, the dollar's fall the students. in our state when we did school choice parent choice, the federal department of justice under president obama tried to stop this program and tried to stop this program over 90% of

the kids are minority, low-income and 90% are happy with the results of the program. whether somebody is electable as to the voters not anybody in this room or anybody else in d.c.. is a good debate to be had. what is the proper role of federal government to do we trust bureaucrats or parents? i trust parents. in terms of the ukraine situation i am glad to see i am glad to see angela merkel and president obama on meeting today. i do favor another approach within the administration or outside the administration that favor the united states providing arms, providing more assistance to our allies i am for that. we need to change vladimir putin's calculation and the way he is looking at ukraine. we know he went to crimea in part because he didn't fear real consequences or repercussions. we know that many of his actions are based on what he views as a white house that has itself said

lead from behind which is not meeting at all. there need to be serious consequences. it is good that the german and french leaders are talking about possibility of tougher sanctions. what i worry about is even if they are successful in coming up with a new agreement with russia with the ukrainian government, the last agreements were not respected by the separatists by the russians leave the last agreements that were supposedly supposed to buy space in a demilitarized zone have been violated. anything we can do to change the internal calculus is a good thing. if that means more sanctions, that can increase the distance ukrainian government, falling oil prices also had an impact on vladimir putin and his calculations. >> over the objections of the europeans? >> i think we should work with our allies but we should be arming the ukrainian government. it is long past time to do that. they are our allies they are

committed to strong relationship with the west, with europe they are a democracy, they are countries that is running its territorial lines and sovereign rights to be respected so i see no reason -- at the same time it is that our european allies are talking about sanctions and the president is talking to the german chancellor today, this pre-arranged meeting. at an end of the day the reason i am for providing these arms is to change the calculation in russia. the reality is our enemies to they don't fear us. our allies don't consistently trust us and in part went you look at vladimir putin's decision to go to crimea i would argue this goes back to 2009. this president in 2009 unilaterally withdrew the missile interceptors, this president president obama also denied georgia at their request for rapid ascent into nato. is president and secretary

clinton famously tried a reset with russia in terms of resetting their relationship. that obviously didn't work. what vladimir putin read in all of that was weakness and what he saw from those moves was he neither fear nor respected the leadership in the west especially united states and as a result he felt it was a good move for him at home and abroad to go to crimea and now you see further encouragement of the violence in eastern ukraine. that will continue until we change his internal calculations and part of the way to do that is to provide assistance to the ukrainian government and increase sanctions. the sanctions have not been effective enough. >> the first meeting, i am wondering, there is a debate in the republican party whether the primary process in the presidential election makes it harder for republicans to win the general election, that happened to john mccain, mitt romney, jeb bush has to be prepared to lose the primary to

win the general. is there a tension between winning the nomination and being able to compete? >> no. i know there's a lot of concern especially in this town about republican party leaders the idea, idealistic belief that if we could have fewer debates, if we could have a gentler kinder nominating process that would be good for the party and good for the nominee. democracy is messy and the donor is, the establishment, and a man not like that, and run something as opposed to the current president, we can't afford more on the job training. is messy and tough. it is better to have voters make the julius. honest debate and discussion is the way it is supposed to work. the longer nominating process and tougher nominating process

didn't seem to hurt senator obama when he was running against senator clinton. a lot of people on the democratic side, think she should have dropped out or suspended her campaign earlier. the presidency of the united states is an important job. we want candidates to be asked tough questions and make sure they have a policy, expertise, experience, character to do a difficult, important job. in republican in the upcoming republican primary i hope there is a fierce and open contest of ideas. i encourage those on the republican and democratic side to avoid the ad hominem attacks. it doesn't have to be nasty or personal or involve name-calling, should be focused on positive solutions. in the primary and general election. voters are concerned about the direction of the country looking for big change, specific ideas, restoration of the american

dream. you heard me say before we can't just be the party of no. we have to be the party of solutions. some of those are wringing their hands about the nominating process. what they mean that don't they out right is we did meet less conservative voters, less conservative candidates. i think that is nonsense. the reality is america doesn't need two liberal parties. there is nothing wrong with having a principal conservative candidate who shows the american people pecan solve problems and move our country forward. a lot of those folks complaining about process are really complaining that they don't want somebody too conservative who wants to repeal obamacare, really wants to get rid of common core to win this nomination so i am glad it is not the donors, the political class but voters get to decide. >> last week there was a controversy. >> a little water for the aged among us. >> last week there was a controversy concerning your

office about a portrait the chief of staff claimed a bloggers was raised baiting by releasing a portrait of you that made you look white. i wonder if you agree with that assessment and how do you feel about the portrait and do you think it looks like you? >> you mean i am not white? i am shocked. that is a revelation. i give you permission in everything you run on me, every store you when you have my permission to put a disclaimer, put a note that i am not worried. this whole thing is silly. the left is obsess with race. the reality is one of the dumbest ways we divide people is by skin color. i think the reality, i wrote an op-ed about this on the commemoration to help commemorate martin luther came's famous i have a dream speech, talking about the end of race. ..

i think it's time we move beyond all this silliness. i know there have been comments, someone on msnbc that made a silly comment about me and raised a couple weeks ago. i gave a speech in london. full nonsense. if people want to debate ideas they should debate my ideas. if you don't like my ideas in london, let's look at the ideas. is one of the dumbest ways to

divide that i've ever heard of. >> i have a question. you didn't answer my question by your chief of staff. do you agree a blogger was race baiting by releasing the portrait of you? >> look, i have no idea. i didn't read it. i have a state to run. i've a day job, i have three kids at home to help my wife raise. my bottom line is i think folks are trying to divide us by the color of a scam site employed is silly. the painting in question is owned by constituent. they can go back to this constituent. i don't think i've met the artist. the idea dividing people by race is silly. you're more than welcome to put in the article you like it really doesn't bother me. >> cook political. >> the last time i saw you was in charlotte right after the 2012 election you made a pronouncement of the republicans

need -- [inaudible] i would love to get a follow up on that of how you think they are doing. >> a couple things real quick answer your question. about nine other things, top 10 list, some of things people can remember, my little boy was so concerned that he said daddy isi you say bad words on tv. we teach our kids we are not allowed to say those words. i finally had to tell him, daddy is not putting more money in the jar. i finally put a limit on a. what it meant by that we've got to stop the stupid part is meant to stop saying stupid things but above and beyond that we've got to start being more -- not just policy-based solutions. it's not enough just to criticize the president, not enough just to say no. i think we're making progress, better than where we used to be but they're still more work to be done. it's not enough to say we just want to repeal obamacare. we need to talk specifically about how we're going to replace it.

it's not enough to solicit i'm critical of the president, this president approach to block the d.c. scholarship program or our scholarship program or wisconsin's under if it attacks. but rather to say how do we improve education? i am against common core but offering alternatives to how do we encourage competition and quality. when it comes to energy, it's not enough to say we have to drill more. we should be truly more but there are other things to harness energy here at home. when it comes to foreign policy it's not enough to criticize this president hasn't done in terms of staying behind israel or stopping ices been doing we've got to offer real solutions about how do we deal with the. i think we're making progress but there was more work to be done. i would like to see as we enter the next election cycle i would like to see more of our candidates give serious thought to the policies their positions. people ask me all the time whether i'm thinking about running.

i'm thinking about it but i'm also thinking about how this country should respond to the major challenges we face. today we are talking about education. we have done papers on energy foreign policy and health care. i would've anybody would also be giving serious thought to be serious and other series of challenges our country faces. i think we're making progress but i think would work to do. the important thing is we give serious thought to the challenges facing our country facing $18 trillion of debt, obamacare. the challenges faced by the middle class. it's offering detailed alternative ideas and conservative ideas. we can be consistent to our own principles offered with solutions that help the middle-class know their children and grandchildren to enjoy the american dream. >> you were talking about your interest in running for president, thinking about it

and been partial to the governor being a nominee. so wanted to ask you since most governors run and said would like to for the country what they do for their state, why would taking a state that had a billion dollar surplus to be a state with 1.6 billions in projected deficit qualify you to run for president? >> well look, two things. i do think it's a little more public events and listening governors are going to do for the country what they did for their state. it's talking about their view of where the country needs to go. when you look at the most successful president, we like to point to ronald reagan the democrats like to point to bill clinton. these are presidents with the governor express. they made priorities as opposed to just giving good speeches like the current president. if people want to look at my record, i believe it would i will stop myself although and take the rest of the time talk

about my great state. i've talked about the fiscal track record. we have reduced not just reduced the growth reduced the size of the state budget $9 billion 26%. we balanced our budget every single year without raising taxes, i think that's something we need in washington d.c. the the private sector economy the economy is growing twice as fast as the national economy. our job growth three times the national job growth. a top five states in sector job growth. we've got an -- a friend economy we are highest ranked every business ranking, every publication we've done. there are many other metrics showing our private sector economy is doing very, very well. third look at education reform. we've been statewide school choice. 90% of our kids are in charter school.

when you look at the percentage of kids in new orleans going off failing schools from over 65% before katrina now it's down to something like 4%. record high graduation and retention rates in our k-12 system as well as in our higher ed system the fourth of health care. we took our cherry hospital system, although it back to huey long and before that. so for example, it used to take 10 days to get a prescription if you're uninsured in baton rouge and now takes 10 minutes. we have over 1000 low birth a piece no longer needing to spend days and they make you going home full weight. in other words, we avoided or% over 1000 acres by john spent on them in a queue which is great for those babies and taxpayers great for those families. we can go on and on. -- nicu. we are in the top five ethics reforms, number one in the country. across the board you see a state when i took office after

katrina state with a stagnant economy inequality in education 25 years or people moving out of the state rather than moving them. today we have more people living in louisiana, more people working than ever before, earning a higher income than ever before. 70 several people moving into the state. i think we've made big changes. most importantly we took on generational challenges and i think folks in these looking for leaders who will be honest with them, even it means they get attacked by the media to left. willing to take a big challenges, not looking for incremental change. looking for someone outside the seats to make big changes. we made a big change. i would argue this country is headed in the wrong country right now in foreign policy and energy policy and economic policy at a number of areas. >> governor thank you very much for being with us.

putting on your statesmen have for a second, if you could tell us what want achievement, like a change, barack obama in six years you, bobby jindal, mostly at my? >> i spent a lot of time criticizing him on education here but there have been things they've done in education and actually to support. for example i think this administration and arne duncan and president obama both have been supporter of charter schools. i think they both have been supportive of at least part of the way in how we reward and our teachers. teachers. i think they have been supportive of accountability. there have been sometimes they have going against what the teacher unions have wanted. what i would argue is that not gone far enough. i do think they do deserve credit for being for charter schools they deserve credit for at least started the conversation about how to change teacher compensation hiring and firing. i think they deserve credit for starting those approaches. i will come back a second thing

i want to commend the president for, but my biggest complaint about the approach to education is they don't go far enough. they are fine with charter schools but they are not pro-school choice. the problem is charter schools are great and we've done a lot of things in louisiana, lifted the cap on charter schools to allow people that have been successful to open multiple charter schools. that's not enough. you have to go further for school choice further on teacher certification reform, further on empowering parents and repeal common core. where i've been most disappointed to them has been their strong support for common core. i think they deserve credit and i've said this before for their support for charter schools and some of the reforms they've done in teacher evaluations. another area i would like to praise the president and first lady specific end joe biden as well, one of the priorities they have made is to help returning troops come help veterans transition into private sector

jobs. they have led the effort, called attention to the need for example, reduce excessive state regulations credentialing and barriers that prevent these veterans from transitioning to good paying jobs. arguing just a very specific example, someone in a military that have experience driving larger vehicles making them get a cdo when they come back home and get gainfully employed. i know we have enacted several laws at the state level in louisiana but that should be something that should be partisan at the right recognize the problem for veterans come home with great skill sets. i know this is something process talked about in the context of this next is what wanted to go further not just for veterans that others who face unnecessary obstacles for private sector employment. they should be applauded for the. i think our veterans face in the popsicles when they come home. this was a commonsense reform and the privacy we've acted but i know a lot of other states

have also acted. they've done a good job encouraging states to act. they will pass a scorecard of money states which when selected and which ones haven't. >> you've talked about kind of the role of the federal government as well as large debate over common core. you're not attacking jeb bush directly but at the same time you are kind of railing against common core supporters and the rationale behind that. over all, i mean this starts a larger conversation about within the republican party the role of the federal government. is common core a starting point? >> absolute. it's a conversation that's been going over some time but common core should serve as an opportunity for us to be examined the proper role of the federal department of education. i think now with a long delayed reauthorization of no child left behind is great time to do that. i was never a a fan of no child left behind to begin with but now we have a chance to reverse some of the things that happen. look at the outcome.

since 1970 when you look at the amount of spending look at federal spending, for example on education look at our national spending, it's gone up dramatically. you look at non-classroom employment, it is also doubled since going back to 1970 student population has only gone up 10%. we have seen a massive expansion of federal spending a lot more hiring outside the classroom and yet flat outcomes. i think the department of education needs to be restructured. i think its budget needs to be reduced focus on civil rights, transparency, focus on deregulation and been so many of its dollars either need to be cut or block grant so it doesn't have the dollars, the resources to get into mischief. it shouldn't be incentivize. punishing or rewarding states for example federally approved curriculum. it shouldn't be conditioned race to the top shouldn't be conditioning raced to the top

funding or no child left behind wafers. part of the problem is a way to the accountability in return for states adopting this president's approach to education reform. that's an improper exercise of federal power over what should be local decisions. they recognized by federal law the constitution they don't have the power to do it so the using federal funding to force states and local districts to do what they want. i think that's wrong so yes i do hope we will have a bigger conversation with the american people about what is the proper role of the federal government. the fundamental question is do we trust parents? do we trust families? the president himself said we can't trust states. union leader said we can't trust parents. i think that's wrong. i think the better approach is to trust our parents, power them for competition and choice but they are closest to the children. they are not just one of many stakeholders.

the parents, their children are the reason why we have an educational system so i do hope common core will be one more one more more reason for us to this but the debate bigger conversation about the proper role of the federal government in local education. >> could common core be one of the benchmarks whether you are for -- >> i think that's a debate for voters, a decision for voters to make. i think that's an important issue. i think it's an example of where folks stand not only on education not only in common core by the role of the federal government in education. i think voters will end up making that decision. i would reject any idea that somebody in d.c. gets to decide what qualifies are disqualified. that's why we have debates and that's why we have this messy long nominating process so voters get to kick the tires are i suspect i hope voters will get to vote for a candidate instead of against a candidate but i don't suspect most voters will find someone they agree with 100% of the time.

voters need to prioritize ethic of what issues they want a candidate to agree with them as opposed to secondary with but i think common core is important and i think limiting the role of the federal government in education is very important. it's one of the three primary concept. i think there's a bigger issue which is the role of federal government in general. i gave a speech last week for example, about common core. i made the point let's put in -- this in the context of americans are now sporting a typical on health insurance broader, not smart enough to the second amendment gun rights, not smart enough if you live in new york to know when not to drink too many big cults or large sodas. there are some on the left that think that americans are not smart enough to live their own lives, to have their own freedoms. i think that's wrong. i think this debate about common core is within that context what is the role of government, and should we have argued we should, trust the american people to make all decisions and live their own lives.

>> governor, just a few weeks ago sitting where you're sitting, senator rubio was asked a question about governors as opposed to senators being presidential candidates spent i suspect he had a different answer. >> he made an interesting point sort of unique that his own perspective on foreign policy would match against any governor. this is always a question with governors not having foreign policy experience. my question is, who do you turn to for advice on foreign policy? >> look, clerk i don't want respect -- we have many qualified people in the congress. my preference continue to be for a cover because of the executive branch experience. many people i talk to and read the most important i wrote a paper with someone i've worked with on this and i've talked, for example, to ambassador bold and i've read widely over the

years talked to former secretary rice and i have read many of the writings of secretary kissinger, and there are many many others. i do want to one person has been a definitive source but my point is this. i think there's been a bipartisan consensus in both democratic and republican administrations post-cold war that a stronger america leads to a safer world, that our enemies need to fear us our friends the to trust us. we need another military might not just to win but to be did dominant, to deter any threats. that can -- seems to be referring in recent years but i would argue we have made to deep cuts in the pentagon's budget. i would argue that you go back to secretary gates analysis was the last time within the department there was a bottom-up approach to what the department really needed in terms of equipment training and resources. and, unfortunately, this has become more partisan as both a bipartisan consensus.

i think a return to the traditional foreign policy of strength, of peace through strength is what we need as a country. it's a cliché and old saying but it is to the best way to avoid war is prepare for war. we are currently projecting to too many people unpredictability. i think you see the world becoming a more chaotic, more unpredictable lesser place. the danger to americans were facing more and more asymmetrical threats. whether it's the threat of cyber attack we saw with the anthem breaking and we see with other large companies but you see the threat of bioterrorism, the threat potential one day of loose nukes. it's not just state actors, it's these asymmetrical threats and i would argue for an eager stronger and more robust ability for us to defend ourselves against these multitude of factors. i would argue we've not seen that in recent years. we have a week foreign policy that doesn't emphasize are taking our friends, doesn't emphasize deterring our enemies. what worries me the most, we

talked about ukraine and russia. what worries me the most is what happens with iran. a nuclear-armed iran is simply us not an example out of not only for issue but to the united states, for our european allies as well. not only poses an existential threat to israel commit poses a threat to the free world. make no mistake him a nuclear-armed iran doesn't stop with a nuclear-armed iran. you will have countries like egypt, the saudis, turkey will very quickly want to be able to obtain nuclear weapons. it will be hard for america to stop them once we've failed if we fail to stop the iranians. i suspect some of those countries have agreements for example, with pakistan. i don't know that for a fact but i suspect they have the ability to buy that technology is they would need to do so. i worry what message the iranian leadership is taking from america's response to putin from america's response an initial response to isis, to our failed,

are inconsistent policies. you talk about a redline in syria and other hotspots around the world. so when it comes to foreign policy, i did spend some time with -- the most important point about it was an addition to investing in our military also is the need for us to remember the best way to avoid war is to prepare for it. of the best way for us to deter our enemies just about the strength. not only to win but to dominate any potential conflict. go back to the previous question. one of the things i thought the president was right was i think this idea there are many countries in asia that are very interested in working with the united states. traditional allies like japan, taiwan, south korea. others that have not been traditional our allies like vietnam. i thought it was significant president went there at a very important moment after the election of a new government. i think there are many countries

in asia that want to work with america especially because of the rising influence of china. that's good for them and good for us. i think there's a bipartisan opportunity when you look at these trans-atlantic transpacific trade deals. the details will be very very important i think there's an opportunity there for us to engage in strengthen our relationships with our allies. i do think was good the president talked about both those trade deals and talked about areas he could work with a republican congress but the details are important. that can be a very good thing not only for us economically but it can also help with the foreign relations as well spirit so you don't have the own kissinger -- >> with the number of people we talked to but no there's no one person i would say. i prefer to talk to a wide array of people and make my own decisions. >> last time you energy mentioned -- whether you going

to run for president. what factors are you still waiting at this point? >> a couple things. in terms of my timeline process it will be the next few months. we continued think about. as we were saying, anyone who's thinking about this i think who is the next president is not as important what the next president does. we faced such challenges. this is an election that we a series election not just about who can tell the best jokes or deliver the best speech. this is a consequential election about the future direction of our country. i'm not just about the election by thinking about the issues and giving serious thought to where does our country need to go on energy, on education, on foreign policy, health care and other areas. i would encourage anyone to do the same thing. i don't i get into a race or into an election this important without giving service thought to these issues. that's part of what i'm doing.

trust me wanted to make a decision it won't be a secret. more happy to tell you all everybody else. i will say this, for me it won't be about fund-raising or polling. it really will be about restoring the american dream. i've been blessed, my parents came over 40 years ago in search of an opportunity. i feel like my brother and i've been able to live the american dream. i want my children and grandchildren to live the dream as well. in terms of the louisiana governor's race, to those of you don't know we have an open primary. i am term limited so we have -- we will have an election later this fall where everybody runs against everybody. the top two candidates within if there's not a winner in the primary would then go to a runoff. since we've done the open primary system for open election we've always had a runoff with one exception which was in 2007 when i one in primary. the are a number of candidates that i have announced they're

running or considering running. on the republicans and we've a number of candidates. it's early but i think there's a chance for the first time in our states issued we could actually end up with two republicans in the runoff in the governor's race. it's not inevitable that there is a chance that could happen. who those candidates will be there's a number of candidates. it's way too early. they have not started engaging each other. they have raised significant funds and it got name id already and beginning to make their move. i would encourage these candidates to make known their position on a number of issues but we made a commitment we wouldn't raise taxes. i think these candidates need to talk about that. we put emphasis on school choice but i want to hear where these candidates stand on that to make sure they don't reverse the hard-fought games. the good news is i think the voters why the number of choices. the recently of this open primary system the reason people wonder is a goes back to the '70s. a fierce race for governor, got

into runoff begin in the early '70s and it was a close hard fought race. edwin had to face the republican nominee he was sitting there waiting for you. he thought this was completely unfair he had to run to tough elections and face a republican who had no opposition. at the time republicans were maybe 2% of the registered voters in the state. he thought that was unfair that the republican didn't have to compete so we decide to do an open primary figuring utah the end up with two democrats and the runoff or at least a democrat or republican, you would have to go through three elections. the reality is in the short term and the republican party to grow about 2%. today we're about a quarter of the voters. when my parents came to louisiana, for example, it was common for the registrars to tell people not to register as republican. you were told if you register as republican, there's no point, you're not get to vote.

the elections are pretty much done by the time you guys get to vote. it gave people an opportunity to register as republicans. i don't think he intended this, allowed the republican party to grow. the open primary system for the first time might produce two republicans in the runoff for governor. i don't think there's a good chance even if the democrat makes the runoff. even objective panels will tell you i don't think there's a chance a democrat would win. that doesn't mean a democrat can't win again in the future. i don't think that's what the state wants at this point. when i ran for my first term it was only one statewide elected republican. now i'll statewide official are republicans. we have for the first time ever a majority, we never had a majority in in the house or senate. when we say ever, i mean since reconstruction. we haven't had a republican majority in in the house or the senate in modern political times. first time was my second term.

could be two republicans in the runoff. >> i think that will do it. i've got a number of my colleagues who want to question the we're out of time. thank you. appreciate it very much. >> thank you all very much. i want to encourage you to read the paper as well. thank you very much for having me. >> c-span2 providing live coverage of you senate floor proceedings and key public policy this. added weekend tv now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us in hd like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> and animal we'll go live to the u.s. senate on this thursday whether davis begin with a period of general speeches but after that we'll see debate on the nomination of ashton carter to be the next defense secretary. confirmation votes will happen

at 2 p.m. eastern. this could be the last note of the week as senators remained at a standstill over the house passed homeland security spending bill. three times last week democrats blocked debate on the bill because of language that overturned president obama's executive action on immigration. current funding for the department of homeland security runs out on february 27. and now live to the floor of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god of light, in whom there is no darkness, thank you for your love. you are a guide who gently leads us. you are a mystery, but not a puzzle; profound, but not

incomprehensible. you are loving but not sentimental; patient and long-suffering but not weak and indecisive. o god, you are all things that we are not but need to be. you, o god with steadiness and perseverance move in the lives of humanity and in the life of the whole world and its events. awaken our lawmakers to your inescapable presence. enable them to feel you in their midst, as they grapple with the problems of our time.

and, lord, we thank you for the many years of faithful service by kathie alvarez. we pray in your great name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? i move to proceed to h.r. 240.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to tar calendar 5 h.r. 240, an act making appropriations for the department of homeland security for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2015 is and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: mr. president later today the senate will consider the nomination of ash carter to be the next secretary of defense. if i could place one demand on him, it would be to leave his successor with our armed forces in a better position to deal with global threats than they are today. as i've noticed -- noted in the past the overall consequence of many of the president's policies has been to weaken our ability to confront al qaeda and its affiliates the taliban and associated groups. the president's inflexibility to campaign promises made in 2008 as made to withdrawals from afghanistan, a rushed withdrawal

from iraq, and executive orders to close guantanamo and send detainees back home to places like yemen and afghanistan. i.t. alsoit's also led to essentially end america's ability to capture detain and interrogate terrorists whether or not we're still at war with al qaeda. the truth is, al qaeda was at war with us before we went to war with them, and today we face a diffuse and versatile threat from terrorists, with isil intent on striking america and its allies. the next secretary of defense needs to explain to the president that drawing down in afghanistan based on an artificial deadline risks the gains we've made there. he needs to explain that the haqqani network and the taliban continue to threaten our allies. the next secretary of defense must do all he can to make the declaratory policy of pivoting to asia a real one. past drawdowns of conventional

power and failures to modernize american force have encouraged foes and unsettled friends. so it's time -- time -- to invest in the platforms and capabilities that will be needed to effectively address china's military buildup and the next secretary must also support the chairman of the joint chiefs when he provides his best military advice to the president, especially when that advice is ignored in the white house. here in the senate, i'll do all i can to support the next secretary. that starts today. i intend to support ash carter's nomination but my support is conditioned on this question: the incoming secretary needs to have the courage to speak truth to power -- to congress, yes but also to his commander in chief. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: mr. president i've been trying to understand what is holding up the funding for the department of homeland security. the department of homeland security is the agency we created after 9/11 that merged 22 dimp agencies different agencies of of our government to make sure that 9/11 never happened again. we created this new department, and we said to them, keep america safe. use our tax resources and your best efforts to keep america safe. and, thank good in we've goodness, we've not had a tragedy like 9/11 since. then when we started debating about funding the agencies of government in december with an omnibus budget bill, the house republicans said we will fund the entire government of the united states, but we will not give regular budget appropriations to the department

of homeland security. they singled out the one department responsible for our safety and security and said, we will give them temporary funding. in fact, the next round of funding ends -- or this round ends february 27, in 15 days. and so we're in an almost impossible to explain situation where the agency with the premiere responsibility to keep america safe is not being adequately funded to do its job. we know we live in a dangerous time in the world's history. evidence continues to be shown of the ruthless, barbaric tactics of extremist groups like isil. kayla mueller this magnificent young woman -- i believe 26, 2 years old -- taken captive by -- i believe 26, 27 years old -- taken captive by isis, was

murdered by them, as they murdered the jordanian pilot by burning him alive and beheaded the japanese journalist. so we know they're ruthless and barbaric, and we know they are a extending their reach. well we're doing what we must do at the department of defense when it comes to stopping them, but we're not doing enough when it comes to the department of homeland security, because we're not funding this agency, as it should be funded. it has been singled out by the house republicans as the only agency that doesn't receive regular appropriations. and when we sit down with secretary johnson and ask him well what impact does it have on you on managing your department when it comes to temporary funding as opposed to a regular budget? he said, i can't make grants to fire departments in illinois or nevada or arizona and when the fire departments come to me and say, our firefighters need

better training, can you give us a federal grant for that purntionpurpose, or they need equipment to keep themselves safe, he said i can't give the grants because i'm under a continuing resolution. and if you look at the budget for this department of homeland security -- and honestly, there's no real disagreement on how much they should receive. when you look at this budget of $47.8 billion it raises some aive questions. let me mention for the record. some of the things that the money is used for: there's $8.5 billion for the coast guard. we know the coast guard's responsibilities. focused on preventing terrorist attacks, addressing evolving attacks to our maritime and transportation systems as well as the global supply chain. preventing thepreventing radiological

materials. that's what the coast guard is supposed to do. it looks like it's $10 billion total that's supposed altogether coast guard but is being held up by this continuing resolution. and you have to ask yourself, what is stopping us from funding the coast guard properly so they can protect us? how about the customs and border protection? $12.5 billion for the customs and border protection to secure u.s. air land, and sea borders; safeguard and streamline lawful trade and travel; and disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal and terrorist organizations. the list goes on and on. what is it that is holding up this appropriation? it took some research, but i found what's holding it up. it's this young woman right here. her name is herda lucio.

herda was brought to the united states was albania at the age of is 1. she grew up in grosse pointe, michigan. she became an academic star. she graduated with a 4.50 grade-pointage of. she is a member of the varsity track team, a member of the national honor society. she went on to the university of detroit, mercy and graduated with honors in a major of electrical engineering. she's been very involved in her community, has volunteered at homeless shelters, been part of tutoring programs at her church. listen to what her friends say about her. "i'm humbled by herd a's desire to serve. she spends hours tutoring kids and volunteering at the junior high school sunday class. it is a joy to watch so many kids run up to her at church

because of the love they receive when they're with her. herda after she graduated learned that she could be protected from deportation -- because she's undocumented -- with a presidential order called daca. it's deferred action on childhood arrivals, and it was an executive order by president obama which says that herda lucio could be a dreamer allowed to stay in the united states and will not be deported. turns out that herda lucio is the reason we can't fund the department of homeland security in the minds of republican leaders. they believe that she needs to be deported first before we fund the department of homeland security. i hate to put that burden on herda's shoulders but she and many like her are at the center of this debate. 600,000 young people, many of them just like herda lucio who came to this country as

children made a great record in high school, no criminal issues whatsoever who want to be part of america's future, and what we're hearing from the republican leadership is, we will not fund the department of homeland security to protect america until you deport herda lucio. that's what the house bill says. it makes no sense whatsoever. mr. president, we've got off to a flying start here in the senate. we had three straight weeks of debate 30 or 40 amendments, both sides of the aisle. i thought but for one bump in the road one thursday night, it was really a -- there was really a good spirit of cooperation here. amendments were being offered on the democratic side, on the republican side. some of them were controversial. people didn't want to vote on them but i happen to welcome what happened on the floor here. i this i that active debate, deliberation all these amendments, it was the right thing to do, even though i

disagreed with the basic kill, the keystone canadian pipeline bill that came before us. and we took it through to its conclusion. there were countless times when any democrat could have stood up and objected and stopped the senate for 30 hours or 60 hours as we saw over the last cephal -- over the last several years. we did not do that. we tried to engage in an active debate even on an issue that we knew the republicans would prevail on. i think that was the right thing to do. sadly, we have fallen back into bad habits. there's been this insistence by speaker boehner that the department of homeland security bill not go forward to fund this critical agency, unless they can challenge president obama on immigration issues. why are they doing this? why are they endangering the safety of the united states of america? is it because of herda lucio and

their determination to make sure that this spectacular young woman leaves america is deported back to albania the country she barely remembers? is that why we're doing this? if it is, it's sad. in fact, it borders on being disgraceful. we need to pass a clean homeland security bill. we need to do it now. we can take up the debate on immigration any time the speaker and majority leader want to bring it up. it's within their power to call the next issue that we're going to debate. i sincerely hope that before we leave for the president's week break that we call up this bill, that we do it, pass it so that we can make sure america is safe in this age of terrorism and then let's save for another day the debate on herda and the thousands just like her and what their fate and future will be in the united states of america. some republicans have stepped up recently and joined us in our

effort. i thank the president the time he joined us on a roll call. yesterday my colleague senator mark kirk from the state of illinois made a statement on this issue. he said "my my hope is that we pass the homeland security appropriations bill clean now. i would think we should just pass a regular appropriations bill under regular order." republican senator jeff flake said -- quote -- "to attempt to use the spending bill to try to poke a finger in the president's eye is not a good move in my mind." more and more republican senators are speaking out. i hope the leadership is listening and i hope the speaker is listening. if we want a debate on immigration let's have it. and i'm anxious to tell herda's story and many others to appeal to my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to come up with a sensible immigration reform but let's not withhold funding on this critical agency while we're embroiled in this political squabble. mr. president, i yield the

floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order the leadership time is reserved. the senate will be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each with the democrats controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. mr. durbin: mr. president? speaking in morning business, i rise to express my support for the president's nominee dr. ashton carter to serve as our nation's 25th secretary of defense. a few words of thanks first for chuck hagel our former colleague in the senate who served as secretary of defense. he's a friend. he's had a long career in public service. he's a veteran from vietnam and the people of nebraska rewarded him by asking him to represent them in the united states senate. as our nation's first person 6 enlisted rank he had a unique ground level view on matters of war and peace and a strong, strong commitment to our troops. i thank chuck hagel for his

service. dr. ashton carter has an impressive distinguished record of service as well in government. an advisor scholar. he has what it takes to be a great secretary of defense. his credentials as one of our nation's top security policy experts are well established. a bachelors degree in physics and medieval history from yale. a doctor in theoretical physics from oxford. he served as faculty chair at harvard and is the author of 11 books. as singularly impressive as this is dr. carter is very much a doer. he served no fewer than 11 secretaries of defense from leon panetta to chuck hagel included. he's four times been awarded the distinguished service medal as well as the intelligence medal. as assistant secretary under the clinton administration he was instrumental in removing nuclear stockpiles from the states of ukraine, kazakhstan and belarus. as under secretary for defense

for acquisition and low gist tisks he was renowned to break logjams to get our troops what they needed. we talked about this at some length when we met in my office a few weeks ago. how can we continue, i asked him, to reform d.o.d. so it will be able to rise to the occasion of today's challenges. as part of the discussion i was pleased to hear his appreciation for the department of defense's organic industrial base, especially one near and dear to my heart the arsenal in illinois. he recalled his experience in afghanistan as ash carter tried to bring troops body armor they needed and recalled working with great employees the dedicated employees at the rock ield arsenal as they -- island arsenal as they delivered the equipment to our troops and rolled it off assembly lines in record times. i'm confident he can provide the president with the best policy advice to deal with our nation's challenges. he has my full support.

while i'm pleased the senate is moving and moving quickly on ash carter i'm troubled that my colleagues across the aisle are delaying consideration of loretta lynch the president's nominee for attorney general of the united states. it's been 95 days since the president announced the nomination. this is longer than any other attorney general nominee has had to wait in recent memory. by way of comparison, the democratic-controlled senate confirmed michael mukasey as attorney general in 50 days. eric holder, 64 days. i sat through the hearings with loretta lynch and i hirched to the -- listened to the questions particularly from the republican side. i listened to the questions on the republican side and came to the inescapable conclusion that the republican senators were going to refuse any effort to renominate eric holder for attorney general. that's all they had to say. their grievance was with the

city attorney general who has announced he's leaving as soon as his successor is chosen. i listened carefully for any criticism of loretta lynch and i didn't hear it. then they had public witnesses a panel that has majority republican-chosen witnesses and democratic witnesses and early on i believe senator leahy asked the question of all the witnesses there, how many of you who were at this public panel oppose the nomination of loretta lynch for attorney general? not one. not one republican, not one democrat. there's no opposition to loretta lynch. why are they holding up this important appointment by president obama? why don't we consider that this afternoon? it can be done, and it should be done very quickly. nobody's questioned her records as a federal prosecutor. she's twice before been unanimously confirmed to serve as u.s. attorney for the eastern district for new york. she has been vetted and examined and questioned to a

fare-thee-well. she testified before the senate judiciary committee for nearly eight hours answering every question and including 600 written questions that were sent to her. it's time to move forward and confirm this obviously well-qualified and historic nominee. the senate judiciary committee will have the opportunity to report ms. lynch out this week. we have the opportunity to confirm her immediately. there is no reason for further delay. what are the senate republicans trying to prove by holding up an obviously qualified nominee for a critically important agency like our department of justice? i hope that the spirit of bipartisanship shown in that committee can be shown on the floor of the senate. mr. president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i'd ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: i ask unanimous consent that i be recognized for

up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you mr. president. to her high school classmates, it was pretty clear what kind of person comiewm -- kayla mueller was going to be. she took up the causes of the dispossessed like when she joined the campaign to stop the city of flagstaff from using recycled water to make snow on peaks the hopi people considered to be sacred. she later went to the most dangerous place on earth because people there needed help. she saw suffering on unimaginable scales brought on by a vicious civil war inside syria and iraq and she wanted to make it better. no one is responsible for her death except for isil. they killed her as they did james foley steven sotloff abdul rahman, peter kassig and

thousands of innocent iraqis over the past year. it has been a long time since the world has seen such evil. this is a brutal, inhuman terrorist organization that today is a threat to the region in which they prowl but without question could pose a threat to the united states if their marriage is allowed to go un -- if their march is allowed to go unchecked. mr. president, every time i hear of a new attack or new execution carried out by isil my blood boils. i get furious. and i commit myself to make sure we do everything within our power to stamp them out. but i also remember that as justified a response as it is, fury is not a strategy. revenge is not security. if we're going to defeat isil, we need to act with our heads not just with our heart. that means that congress needs to pass a war authorization that

includes a strategy for victory a strategy, mr. president that learns from a small little creature called the plenarian flat worm. i want to tell you about flat worms for a second. this is going to sound a little strange but i'll bring it back here. these are extraordinary little things that live in ponds under logs. they live in moisture soil. what's -- they live in moist soil. what is amazing about these flat worms is if you split one in two, cut it in half, both regenerate into new flat worms. if you cut four pieces, all four pieces can regrow into new flat worms. it means that if for whatever reason you're trying to get rid of flat worms cutting them into pieces does more harm than good. you take a knife to it and you actually create more flat worms than you destroy. so why am i talking about this, mr. president? because they are a perfect object lesson of the simple truth that if you attack a

problem the wrong way you might not just leave the problem unsolved you might actually make it worse. if you use the wrong tool to try to eradicate flat worms you end up with a lot more of them. in the wake of the 2003 invasion of iraq, mr. president, we were told that we were going to be greeted as liberators. we were told that we'd be out of iraq in just a few years. and when that failed, our invasion turned the one-headed monster of saddam hussein into a two-headed monster of competing sunni and shiite insurgencies. then we were told that more troops would do the trick and it worked for only as long as tens of thousands of americans were patrolling the sands of iraq. but ultimately our occupation was quietly breeding a new brand of even more lethal insurgency, one that turned into the terrorist group that we're fighting today. put simply, isil in its current form would not exist if we had

not put massive ground troops into the region in the first place. our presence in iraq, our mishandling of the occupation became bulletin board material for terrorist recruiters. iraq became, in the c.i.a.'s words, the cause celebre of the international extremist network. we killed a terrorist and the next day two more showed up. let me be clear america is not responsible for this evil ideology and our troops are not to blame for isil. no one forgets al qaeda attacked us and killed 3,000 of our people before we invaded iraq but do we believe that having hundreds of thousands of u.s. soldiers occupying territory in the middle east since then has succeeded in making us safer? we killed a lot of terrorists over the last 13 yeerks and yet there are -- years and yet there are more of them in more places with an even more radical agenda today than ever before.

former defense secretary bob gates understood the lesson of the flat worm when he said that upon his departure from the department of defense that any future secretary who proposed putting ground troops back into the middle east should -- quote -- "have their head examined." for me, as we debate this new war authorization against isil, i have a bottom line. we cannot authorize a strategy that could result in american combat troops going back to the middle east. now if this president or the next president put our soldiers into the middle east to fight isil, they would serve with bravery and honor. but an intervention of this scale would ultimately create more terrorists than it destroyed. and to the extent we drove back isil it would only be temporary lasting for as long as our troops were there. why? because extremist groups like isil exist not because of a military vacuum but because of a political and economic vacuum. they prey upon disenfranchised young men who see no future for themselves in societies with

massive crippling hunger, poverty, and destitution. these groups work best when autocratic or sectarian governments marginalize specific groups pushing them into the arms of extremists who pledge to fight the corrupt and dehumansing status quo. mr. president, more often than not foreign ground troops exacerbate these forces. foreign occupations often empower divisive local leadership like the former iraqi prime minister maliki, who pushed people towards not away from extremist groups. then groups like al qaeda and isil use this misery to brainwash young men into believing that america is to blame, that we're then mi that they're yearning to fight.