we design a given project. there will be an analysis just like for gender issue, for a given project. it could be a health project, agriculture, they will look at climate change and how to we dress it in the mitigated. >> how? >> for example you say in health we look at more impacts from the health where there will be more demand for help systems because of the impact of climate change. in agriculture you are saying well, what are we going to be doing about the drought, long periods, well you will have drought resistant seeds, irrigation. so, each particular project has to look at it and say, what are you trying to accomplish, what impacts you expect. it could be floods, droughts, each example has to look at-- given a country specific example, but it's required mandatory analysis and i would

like to think us aid will learn as we do this. we don't have all the answers. we have to learn, and be transparent about what did work at what did not work. weep at these evaluations online some worked in some did not work and we need to be transparent about it. >> how are you looking at climate impacts and opining on those types of issues? >> climate is extremely important to us. a lot of our work at the mekong river commission has to do with longer-term forecasting. so, we are very much aware of the modeling taking place in terms of predicted variability in precipitation. it seems as if the basin as a whole is an intermediate area. some will get more water and some less so that overall the over amount of water may be roughly the same for the next several decades, but there is

concern about the intermittency and variability in the supply and so we have for instance just issued last year a report looking at the water supply for the area over the next 25 years. we are relatively confident that we can survive both kinds of incidents of droughts that has occurred in the past that as we get further along in the future we get concerned about what the possibilities are. so, we are definitely sort of factory not into all of our activities and it's an issue for us soon that jean, put your engineer had on, not your philosophy had on. you are actually-- can we actually look at some of these long-term climate issues and can we access them connect no. we assessed it, so if from not

mekong river report are six scenarios that the mekong river commission used and you can see as an engineer, how do i design-- what are the engineering design standards for system that varies plus 40% or minus 40%. we found the same thing and a great lakes except we use 23 gcm and 650 scenarios, so the cloud of dots and compass plus or minus 10 degrees celsius, plus or minus 100% variability levels, so how do you get out of that? if, for unless you use engineering judgment, which is what i'm here for. there is no way really to plan for this. on top of which and i did not bring the slide because i did not want to to bore you, that there's a thousand year record of monsoons in vietnam, in caves so, you can see over the last

10000 years the monsoon intensity has decreased significantly since 10000 years ago to a point where the near civilization disappeared because they had the 40 year droughts, no monsoons announce rebounding. if it rebounds 10000 years ago temperature was 2 degrees celsius higher, so from that, the evidence and other evidence one could deduce that you better be plenty for more frequent floods, more intense monsoons, a lot more flooding in the future then there has been in the recent past. >> good question, tough answer. any thoughts? >> i think right now vietnam is concerned if they are getting less water and less, so if

monsoon is more-- it would be very wonderful for the vietnamese. >> monsoons and typhoons, you're getting hits from both sides. >> to answer your question, what do i think we if i'm not mistaken about five transboundary projects which are modern projects in order to try to measure again so that climate change, so with those had to say projects if the projects seem to be successful, identify good measures than it would be multiply or how to say copy to other regions. that's going on right now. we have, in fact, before this reform we have big program

actually funded by european union for the climate change adapt tides initiative, so the program has been how to say expanded for the next 12 years, 12 months. however, because of the rejection-- reduction to equate meaner organization for the mic we reduced the staff. we have about 200 people a year ago and now we have six positions, so that will also affect the program. i mean, we don't have enough people, but that's what we have to do. >> as the moderator, you just

came and told us, look, you have 650 different models, how much did this cost? >> we spent because we're plenty of money-- >> right. >> we spent about $2 million just on the climate impact change analysis. >> just look at the climate impact analysis-- sorry, they got real needs. are we taking money away from delivering services on the ground to invest in analyses and research that really might not get as much further down sound develop pathways. in other words on the person making a decision about look on my need all the resources i can to provide basic needs with people i have here. this climate analysis sounds like it's spending a lot of money on things that aren't going to get me answers.

>> cloud of dust. >> is this an ex to potential issue in terms of balancing investments and where we put our money in the future? >> i think it's a reasonable balance. i don't think you will invest large amount of money. you look at existing resource and science evidence there make your best judgment and again, learning as you go a long. we don't have all the answers, so looking at existing resources >> from the investor's perspective, you want to build a dam on hydropower resource availability over the next 30 years. >> give it up. if you want to build a dam-- you can't answer these questions. you are building a piece of infrastructure that will be in the river for 200 to 500 years. we don't understand hydrologic environment beyond 30. i mean, there's a real challenge between those two issues to begin with and we talked about this at lunch. you can build a dam and take it

out 50 years would be the ideal situation because we may not-- it may not be appropriate at that point and we may not need them, but they represent one of the most important ways of meeting the needs now. >> you don't want to create a potential disaster that's greater than the original flood itself. >> if you are another country looking to invest in building and the structure in let's say laos, and you are looking to prophet over 25 year concession, well, you're going based on historical data. you are not required to do a climate change analysis. are you making the best investment decision? you can generate less in times of drought, but you can never generate more than the max capacity in terms of a flood. so you are either spilling your money or not kidding the money anticipated?

>> back to some of the questions i think jean was asking and i mean really great deal of concerns about how these things are being finance and the way that is third-party funding is playing a much larger role in the department of larger infrastructure than that traditional financial institutions where we worked hard to build safeguards to look at some of those issues and some of-- you are correct, it's a 25, 30 year concession and what happens in years 15 my not be as important to them and they might not want to make investments up front to address those 50 or 100 years-- there's a large capacity building element and i think one of the areas we have worked a lot with with some of these other countries is to build their capacity to build to look at these types of arrangements and understand what types of things they should be requiring with these deals. that's going to be more important, the buyer will have to make the buyer more capable of being aware. sorry, it's buyer beware, but we

want to build our capacity so they can enter into arrangements to protect their own interests because they want something that will deliver a near 50 and something that won't coppermine is there other developing opportunities and something that won't create a bigger problem than what they've got. we need to work with those countries because that will be the wave of the future. it's a real tough world out there. >> lets me clarify. there are two aspects of dam design. one is you want to maximize your output backslash benefits, but you also want to make sure that the design is safe, that the dam doesn't collapse and it passes the maximum probable flood. if the maximum probable flood that i can't figure out from these gcm's. i could do everything else. give me, you know we could do the other stuff, but this is the part that's really important

that people tend to overlook. cxr, and looking because-- henry, you had your hand up, but i want to make sure no one else. rich, how much time did you want to close up? >> we can run out of questions. if we do, otherwise for is the time. we will cut off at 4:00 p.m. >> thank you, again. so, the mekong river basin development plan in the future based on a good understanding of the negatives and positive impacts of development in conjunction of climate change. in general, it's well worth it.

in fact, i think it is still undergoing climate change study that has identified-- climate change is now a number of hundreds of gcm model and a number of downscaling techniques and backed with a sum of nine climate change, so basically, you know, the extent of the change in climate in the future. so, i think in the mekong river basin understanding that impacts is based on running these scenarios. i think the scenario has to be plausible scenarios, so going back to the hydropower j-- bands in the council study, which is still undergoing we consider scenarios that are plausible. hydropower dams will be there.

the discussion to focus on minimizing the negative impacts, maximizing the positive impacts of the development, take advantage of the opportunities that the climate change presents and-- i will cite two examples. the hydropower dam in lao for example in china, i think they are kind of assigned to maximize power, but all the way through consultations, discussions as well as dialogue partners there might be room for more joint operations, perhaps for the benefit of flood control or dry season irrigation or counteracting the salinity impact of sea level rise may be the joint operation and multi- objective operation will

supersede the operation for maximum power. i'm hopeful that will happen and i think that's going to happen. the real conflict, i think, is hydropower versus fish. the rest of the impact are i think mitigated to some extent. but, fish and it dams don't mix. i think one third of the fish species in the mekong river basin are those called long-distance migrator's. they migrate all the way to china and those will be impacted because of the barriers of the dams both upstream and downstream. the solution has to look at who is really impacted of those and that's basically the 60% poor people in the basin. the basin and think it's about 6 million that are relying on

fishing. so, solutions as to -- off he said not to this, it has to involve moving these people to something else and that involves other sectors as well. not necessarily energy, but other sectors as well. if i am a subsistence fishermen i'm probably out fishing everyday. i would rather be working in an office, for example, and be able to provide better for my family. if we can provide options to the fishermen, maybe through the help countries, maybe through the other countries as well and it boot-- through development partners i think that would be a big steps towards coming up with a political management solution to this, fish versus dam conflict.

>> i think we would all rather be out fishing. [laughter] >> thank you. that's very good. is a good way to i think bring us back to a more philosophical aspect as well. we add the stimson center, we agree with most experts, environmental scientific experts etc. that 68, 70 meters high for a dam and are not really a good thing in terms of summary people still dependent on fish for their livelihood and survival, but at the same time we try to be practical about this so that laos with evident interest in

this, but there's also the issue of, well, should laos prophet at the expense of downstream countries and so there have been strategic barman on studies done for the mekong river commission and also you mentioned a university study which was supported shows huge disparity between no benefits and the benefits allow are actually much smaller than the impact-- negative impact down that stream to other countries, so that's not to say laos shouldn't build a dam. we are just saying it takes one of the trade-offs and how me dams, which ones, what type sort of thing. finally, and my colleague courtney who is by the way responsible for mainly putting

this program together, but are other colleague brian who is on holiday right now-- anyway, we have come to the conclusion that it's not going to be persuasion that is say that the fish or save the environment's. it's really the drivers are about money and it's about economic development and the prophet that comes from it and we don't believe that-- we don't believe in perpetual poverty either as an answer to these things, but the main point is simply that it's mainly the money that's going to be the driver and the problem-- the reality, than the narrative we are developing for the future of these mainstream dance is that political and financial risk is rising and these are all concessions. these are all either private companies or state owned companies, state owned banks

etc. and they are investing in these projects and they may do some investment in china for other than economic purposes, but still even their companies want to make money. the real question now whether these are moneymaking projects over the longer term and so that is sort of what we were looking at is as whether the cost and benefit and you could say similar thing for for instance about climate change here in the political debate, argument about it. at the end of the day, it won't be the politicians. it will be insurance companies that will decide how we respond to rising sea levels, for instance. so, this has been a delightful discussion in particular to get all of these different perspectives on this issue and it is extremely complex issue and we again, the stimson center

doesn't have all the answers at all, but we do think that this issue of trying to better evaluate the trade-offs are very important, but also and assuring the water and the energy is important. also, looking at where the money is coming from. it's not coming from laos cambodia-- cambodia or even vietnam, it's coming from developers that finance them and for various reasons these projects don't look so great now as they did when the first mo you was a fine, so that also means it's incumbent on the donor community in particular to try to help countries like laos or cambodia or vietnam find other ways to get where they want to go in terms of economic growth and development, so i want to thank everyone who very much and again, he's

particularly a pleasure and a honor to have ceo dr. phan hear from the mekong river commission because it's really a big deal that the first time now, the ceo is from the region and it was once thought it would be hard to do because who would decide who's going to get it and somehow you emerged out of the private sector, which is an interesting way that maybe had not been that so much about in the past and we also think-- the mekong river commission has a lot of flaws, a lot of problems, but it's the only game in town. it will never be another treaty like the 1995 napalm treaty, so if we let that fall into disuse or disrepair or ineffectiveness,

that's been-- who knows what will happen. in a region of warfare struggle and political problems and is still political hard feelings among different countries, so i want to thank you everyone and you the audience. it was great to get an audience where we have both domestic view in the international environmental perspectives represented and again, thank you courtney, for your work in pulling this together and for all of the-- [applause]. >> and for all of you on the panel and people who support your work for being so forthcoming and joining the program. thank you very much. [applause]. >> as this event comes to a

close this news item reported by nbc news, maine's governor hinted today that he might be ready to resign. after five years in office the republican governor spoke several days after he sparked another firestorm of criticism after leaving an angry voicemail or democratic legislator during which he challenged the lawmaker to prove i'm a racist. he said he plans to meet with family close advisers to decide what to do next. , and apply tonight on c-span primary coverage results in florida congresswoman debbie wasserman schultz and marco rubio face primary challenges and we will following what's happening in arizona with senator john mccain running for his sixth term. you will hear from the winners and losers and we will take your action i found and twitter again on c-span tonight here we have more on the florida republican senate primary with political reporting. senator rubio yesterday refused to commit to serving a full six term-- six your term in the senate should herein reelection in the former republican presidential candidate family's adjusted that if he ran for the

white house again he would be prepared to leave politics behind if you lost quote no one can make that commitment because you don't know what the future will hold in your life personally politically picked the florida senator told cnn yesterday in the door for a presidential run, but asked if he could commit to a full senate term before slamming it shut in the next breath. you can read more about that and political.com. and some background as released by hillary clinton and donald trump. >> a new ad buy in a number of key states called donald trumps america, put out by the trump campaign and joining us on the phone's denial, editor of the hill newspaper. thank you for being with us. >> thank you. good to be here. >> with the message behind this latest trump added by? >> i think the main messages that donald trump would bring economic opportunity and prosperity to the nation. that's the main thrust of the act, but it also does try to

painkiller clinton as a more of the same and this has been a big frame or narrative of the tram campaign seeking to push for a long time that he is the person who can bring real change to a political system that is purely a large number of americans disapprove up steam and donald trump has said he wants to make america great again picked the title of this act, which we listen to it a moment called two americas, a focus on the economy , but reminiscent of 2004 and then senator john edwards campaign is a democrat on the two americas. >> absolutely. interesting parallel since senator edwards would not have been as proposing the kind of policies were the kind of stamps donald trump is doing, but i think this points to a wider issue, which is trumps assertion that the political elites work

in such a way as to freeze out ordinary people or to rig the system against them and i think that is really what the true america slogan is in this case, more so than simply the separation between ad prosperity and poverty, which was more of edwards case in 2004. >> is a new 32nd spot released monday by the tram campaign. cured his. >> in hillary clinton's america the middle class gets crushed, spending goes up, taxes go up, hundreds of thousands of jobs disappear. it's more of the same, but worse. in it donald trumps america working families get tax relief, millions of new jobs created, wages go up, small businesses thrive in the american dream is achievable. change that makes america great again. donald trump for president. >> on donald trump and i approved this message. >> we are joined by the associated or of the hill newspaper.

where is the head on the air and how much has the tram campaign spent? >> the total spent in this ad is $10 million in it is primarily focused on battleground states, but quite a number of them and this has appeared on a total of nine states, i believe, to run through them quickly it's ohio, pennsylvania, north carolina, florida, new hampshire, iowa, nevada, virginia and colorado. >> the hillary clinton campaign also release a new outdoor the weekend. hears that spot as the next time hillary clinton and i approved this message. >> he wears it like a crown, make america great again. but, trott made his shirt and bangladesh, his ties in china and his suits in mexico. in fact, the real donald trump outsourced his products and jobs to 12 different countries. so, don't believe the hot. you can't make america great again if you don't make these in

america. >> the latest from the hiller clinton campaign. 90, how big of an issue is the economy in this 2016 election? >> i think it's huge. i think there are millions and millions of americans who don't really feel they are getting ahead economically. they don't really feel the benefits of the supposedly covers since the great recession. so, i think it's massive and of course it's particularly important in a number of battleground states that have been in the past assorted heavily oriented towards manufacturing jobs. donald trump hoping to win states like ohio, pennsylvania and elsewhere in the so-called rust belt and i think the ad you just played from hillary clinton's campaign purely intended to head him off at the path they are. >> finally, these are 230 second played-- paid spots, but in 2016 with some a different media choices and the influx of social media, how important had is paid

advertising by these candidates? >> great question. many people would say hiller clinton has jumped out to italy did many of these battleground states because her campaign spent more than $60 million before donald trump began advertising on tv at all. nonetheless, steve, think your point is well made that there is inevitably some kind of saturation point with tv advertising. we just don't know at what point that will be hit nor do we know when voters really start to tune into this contest in a close fashion and therefore could be persuadable by ads. >> at the hill.com. this is the headline, donald trump hitting hillary clinton on the economy in a new ad. it's available on line at the hill.com. thank you for being with us. >> thank you, dave. >> capitol hill reporter chad treating out today that senate minority leader harry read his writing writing to james kobe

concerned russia's trying to impact the general election outcome and he wants an inquiry. director, he was asked this morning about russian hacking, head of cyber security form that we covered. >> mention the sony had several times and one of the reasons that was considered a significant event is that it was a foreign entity attacking a constitutionally protected speech. now, we have confirmation that potentially foreign actors have been conducted intrusion on to state election systems. how would you characterize an incident like that and also as we head into the november elections, is this something that would require some immediate action on behalf of the federal government, particularly dhs? >> that's unimportant question. it will surprise you that i'm not going to give an answer attaches on any particular matter or maybe i can say this, we take very seriously any efforts by any actor including

nation states, maybe especially nationstates that moves beyond the collection of information about our country and that offers the prospect of an effort to influence the conduct of affairs in our country whether that's an election or something else. i don't want to comment on the ticket there's, but those kinds of things are something we take very very seriously and work very very hard to understand so we can equip to the rest are governments with options for how to deal with it and that's all i will say about that at this point. >> former president bill clinton in jimmy carter talk about public service and policy changes since they both left the white house plus other issues including global politics at a globalization, voter turnout, supreme court in dealing with isis. this is part of the clinton global initiative meeting held in atlanta. >> now, i would like to invite

one of america's all-time greats citizen servants to show me on that-- going on that platform, president jimmy carter. [applause]. [applause]. >> do you feel as well as you look, i feel fine. thank you. >> that's great. we were talking backstage and i think it might be interesting. we have some people who are here for the first time in some people who have been here several times. they all admire the service you have done. i thought it would be good to kick this off if you could just take us back a few years.

i pledged allegiance to jimmy carter in 1975. so, we have known each other a long time. both of us have been blessed to live longer out of office and we were in office. you realize, you know, that you work every day of your life and he wanted to count to be a good experience, so i think it would be good if you would start by telling all of these people who are by definition a little less to the service-your, how you decided to organize your life when you left the white house and to do what she did. >> thank you, bill. first of all he did not take me long to live longer after i left office than it did when i was in office. [laughter] >> i was good at getting

elected, but not reelected. [laughter] >> i had a lot of way to do when i left office, so we decided to organize the carter center. to look around the world and see what was not being done that we thought should be done. if united states government or harvard university or the united nations was doing something we did not get involved in it and so that's what we started on and so both of our work has been overseas. we take care of health programs, monitor elections and just did over 100 elections and try to promote peace. one time i came back from africa and the president of the university where i been a professor for 34 years wanted to do something at home because we have a lot of poverty in atlanta, so we did an analysis of atlanta and found 500,000 people who lived in the southern part of atlanta, a lot of them

african americans were living in periods of destitution. to get a job and so forth and i was amazed at how we people we took on to help, but we provided -- divided them up into 20 different groups of 25000 each and we found when we went into those poor neighborhoods, no which i've been into before that the policeman in the welfare workers on health workers and school teachers did not live there or david in a nicer part of town and commuted. so, we decided to organize the atlanta project and it was one of the most interesting things we did because i wanted to bring together higher education and business as well as government to help these very poor people who do not know how to make out a grant application, so we did that and every .5000 people without a major corporation. delta airlines took 25000, coca-cola took 25000 and we had

a major university do the same thing and it turned out to be a good program. we had it for five years and treated those people like they should have been treated to begin with and i was at the end of five years 16 of them graduated and met our criteria and the other we helped for several more years, but it was an interesting thing to see. like delta airlines helping people who were very poor. delta airlines has realized when they put out a call for flight attendants they would publish it in the atlanta constitution newspaper and none of those people ever run the atlanta constitution newspaper, so they learned how to advertise. most of the people back out welfare checks had to pay about $15 to cash their welfare check. they could get a chance of a bank account, so we got the banks to let them have bank accounts. it was a good thing and that's when we saw in the united states

as well as overseas there is a short division between rich and poor and we try to cross that barrier between the rich and the poor and that's one of the things that the carter center did. i had a handful of things to do. we still have a lot of vacuums to fill. i think cgi is showing a lot of them. >> let me ask you this. explained to them, how do you keep a project going over eight period of several years chimeric >> we started working on it 30 years ago and we have found it in 21 countries. 23600 villages, three and half million cases and we had been working on those people. there's no medicine for. we have taught people how to

change their life so they don't have this warm growing in their body. last year with 22 cases instead of three half-million. this year so far we only have two cases, so we are working on getting rid of it. [applause]. >> i would say the main thing is to let the people do for themselves what they can do and what they have always been able to do, but a lot of these folks particularly in africa have never known what it means to have success. they have never known what it means to trust someone from outside that wanted to help them really and we have found one of the most revealing things that i have found since i left the white house was that these poorest of people who have not had a decent house to live in or any success in life are just as smart as we are and just as ambitious as we are. their family values are just as

good as ours and it worked just as hard as we do if they are given a chance to work on something worthwhile. [applause]. >> that's one of the lessons i have learned. >> you mention all these numbers and people make fun of me when i talk about numbers and i have always been amazed that politics is the only profession where people are surprised that you know anything. [laughter] >> so, i want you to give us all those numbers and statistics. let's talk about a problem that you and i were talking about backstage. the american economy is different than it was when i saw the challenges and we talked earlier about this huge problem with prescription drugs and child abuse sweep across the country and a lot of it is

rooted in the fact that so many people are stuck economically. if you are approaching this as opposed to political office, do you have any ideas about what we can do about that and about whether we can in service to help take this huge burden of accumulated college debt off the young people in this country? it's also a source of enormous roach-- frustration and a lot of them think they will be able to start their own business because they will get cut off their shoulders. >> i-- i think a lot of the problem with the debt is because the colleges and universities have raised their tuition and lots and the states that used to provide enough money to cover most of the cost has reduced the contributions, so this has

forced the students took him late that. when i left office we had a program with relatively low tuition and good state support where every qualified person could go to college. i hope we will see that come back again. i know there has been discussion about universal college education, so i think we need to come to that again, but as far as the drug and the hope is-- i believe we need to change our policy on drugs-- drugs. when i was in office i made the statement in 1979, think it may that called for the decriminalization of marijuana, not to let it be legal, but to decriminalize it and stop putting people in prison because they possess or use drugs. so, we concentrated than on treatment of people that had drug addictions. that changed when i went out of office, as you probably know and

it's been changed ever since, but now there's an increasing number of people that want to change it back. i think even both democrats and republicans now see it's a heavy load in our prisons and has become counterproductive. when i was governor, this is ancient times, we had a competition with other governors in the south including arkansas, as a matter fact, to minimize the number of people in prison. in 1980, when i became-- in 1976 i became president, one out of a thousand americans were in prison. now, seven and a half times as many people are in prison as they were back then and a lot of it is because of incarceration of people taking drugs, but then i think you have to get to the person whose addicted to be involved in his or her own correction and own salvation and i think if you just target them

to put them in prison and punish them because they own some marijuana, i think, that they counterproductive thing. i think in every case if you let people be involved in their own correct you know about problems, solutions the problem that is the best avenue to take. >> i think we were talking about this backstage, i cannot remember a time in recent history when there has been so much agreements between republicans and democrats that the drug problem ought to be treated like mental health and medical problem and also there is a lot of cross party agreement about spending $64000 a year to keep someone in the penitentiary is not as good as spending much less to prepare them to enter the workforce. but, i do think and where i'm going with this is we will need

more people who have the kind of projects that we just announced for homeless people, for people moving into the workforce. we can't have people right out of prison and have been discriminated against and then apply for jobs. you have pipeline where we train them for those jobs and we need more people who can go in the prisons in the first place to do that. i think-- in other words the government can do what you can do to change the law, but it's unrealistic given all the budget problems to think that we will adequately prepare, so what you are saying about prison. in new york where hillary and i live has very active prison program.

prison debate team beat harvard and west point, so that proves what he said, intelligence is probably-- pretty discriminative if he were leaving the white house tomorrow and you had to design a service, what would you do? how would you think about it? >> are you still talking about prisons? >> anything. >> i think we need some innovation that would involve not only the people who have been, the police accused of a crime, but also the general public. successful leaders in business and education. one of the things i did when i was governor, we had a program of getting volunteer probation officers and i was active in the lions club. i was a leader in alliance club

and we called the members of lions club in colonus to volunteer to the probation officers and we would bring the volunteers to atlanta and the prison director and i would give them instructions and they would have to agree before they came up here that each member of say a lions club would take one probation and they had to visit that prospect before he got out of prison and get to know their families and that prominent businessman had to promise me as governor that he would guarantee that person when they got out of prison would have a job and so we gave them instructions and they became volunteer probation officers, but not only let us keep the people from going back into prison because they had a job when they came out, but also let the community in georgia be -- know how much better was to get someone out of prison meant

to stand prison be it hardened criminal. that's one of the innovative things we might try again. [applause]. >> that's a good idea because we don't have enough probation officers to handle people out there now much less the people that ought to be let out. >> same way then. we did not have enough probation officers. they work harmoniously with the probation officers, so these volunteers come a prominent business leaders would only have one person to be responsible for they wanted to make sure that guy had a job and did not go back to present, so it was a very personal relationship between the richest people in the community and the people quite often young black african-american young man that got out of prison and he got a job and had a good life after that. as the kind of thing we need to try more of an eye think as governor-- the governors can very well inspire people to do it.

>> that's all we need-- i think this is good. every one of you wherever you are from, i bet wherever you are from i bet you anything that the probation system in your state is inadequate to properly serve the number of probationers that exist today much less the number we would have if we do you institutionalize all of these young people. we didn't rehearse this. i just came to him. it was really good. so, what else? if you aren't doing something with criminal justice and you were walking out of the white house today what else would you do? >> you got me answering all of

the questions, but i don't mind. [laughter] >> may know what i think about everything. i'm a boring. >> let me take another problem that exists in our country and that is the decreasing number of people who vote in america and as you know there's a lot of efforts i would say among republican and democratic legislators, if you could end-- all democrats and legislature and all governor from the same party they want to minimize any change in the electrical system in the electoral system and i think it is on the opposite party. this is something that republicans are doing, but you know, how do you get 10 people registered to vote? if i had my preference i would let everyone be automatically registered to vote when they are 18 years old, but another i did

that i tried and worked very well in georgia, we said at the law deputizing every high school principal to be a voting registrar and every may, as governor i called on the high schools to have a contest among every high school in georgia of that who could register the most upcoming 18 -year-olds to be registered to vote. when i got to the white house and proposed a similar proposal both democrats and republicans opposed it because they did not want to change their constituency that put them in congress. i blame republicans mostly for trying to keep african-americans and old people and you know and others from voting, i think both sides are kind of reluctant to change their constituency that has put them in office. that is something that the

president can speak to the people about and maybe get something like that done, but i think the main thing is to let them have last-minute registration, registration by mail or register everyone when they are 18 or get high school principals to be registrar's. other ideas can be attractive and inviting. >> you know, i agree with that and i think we should have automatic enrollments and a lot of other things. i also think it would help these states if the more states would adopt a system like california's legislative boundaries, so it became less political. it's a heavily democratic state, so they are likely to put more seats, but it works better because then the candidates in

more more groups accept people across the board. we have different problem that is contributing to a lot of this polarization in america. that is that two different americans show up in presidential election that the midterm election, much more than was true 30 years ago. that is if you remember you have it pretty good midterm after he became president's, but turnout was down, but it was uniformly down. but, now it's breathtaking the difference, the demographic and political makeup between people that though in presidential elections and vote in midterm elections which makes the democrats suspect when we want to expand voting registration and the republicans suspect when they want to make it harder to

vote because we think they are trying to make the presidential election look like the mid term election and we need to come up with some system where citizen activists can get the midterm vote up because if the midterm vote if the american profile were more or less united, i think it would help immigration reform, for example, because then both parties would have to -- it would be difficult in the long run for the democrats. both parties would have to compete for every demographic. i think that's important, so you got any bright ideas? i don't. i fell on my face last time. i would very hard in 2014 to try to bridge the turnout gap between presidential elections in my native state of arkansas, and i failed. but, i think there has to be a way we can do it. >> i think the two dramatic

changes that have taken place since you and i both ran for president is the stupid decision by the supreme court on citizens united. and the other one is increasing gerrymandering of a congressional district. here, i think an enlightened supreme court could reverse both of those things. one of the things that would be easy and maybe even a conservative scream court to do it say every state had to have a blue-ribbon commission or to outline congressional districts. i think that would go a long way to reducing the polarization because now in georgia, for instance, there's a republican legislature in power and republican governors and we had a division in georgia between-- because they want to put all of the white people in one district and get all of the

african-americans in a different district, so the only possibility for a congresswoman to get election would be to live in african-american district and be african-american. the rest of the districts vote republican. that kind of division in the state instead of a proper division could go a long way, so i think those two things would be the best thing plus universal registration. get those three things done and we would have maybe a democratic system that would be as good as you and-- when you and i were president. >> it is unhealthy to be unelected representative of the people and realize you can never be defeated again unless someone gets to the right of you or to the left of you as a democrat. it's a totally discouraging people from working together and i think it's not healthy. >> but, that's the way it is in this country and california has

corrected that to some degree. >> it's interesting watching-- i have seen since california changed its system, i've seen the change in quality of the debates there where it's heavily a democratic state, but there is an extraordinarily-- they talk more about the practicalities of implementing progressive reforms there. people feel safe to talk about-- it may not be as easy as it sounds and that's a good thing. .. just using footage of elections.

as you know, with iran against gerald ford, for the general election we raised zero money. we took -- i think he did the same thing, did you not? we need to go back to the. i'd like to see, i'd like to see public financing evolve a lecture from congress to u.s. senate and government. i think it would be a good move as well. >> now, of course, it would require as you pour out a in the supreme court decision. does you could say you can't have this public money unless you follow the restraints but that was the rule before and so much money could be raised. everybody just too bad it. >> change supreme court. [applause] >> it's important.

we think when looking at all the interpretation of the constitution. let me ask you something else. that i think is important. help us all to understand, you continue to travel the world. very close in touch with all the things that are going on. people are worried about a lot of the harsh rhetoric and rather extremely divisive things that are being sent in america. but the truth is they are being narrowed your in the world. people either feel, where they feel the combined impact of stagnant economics, and kind of identity threat and diversity crisis. he had the biggest refugee crisis in europe since world war ii. you've got a lot of tension between china and their neighbors, southeast asia because of the economics and nationalism there.

you've got a lot of candidates getting elected who are saying rather bizarre things, including the new president of the philippines who suggested maybe journalists should be assassinated. what's your take on this? why do think it is happening worldwide? and what, if anything, can be done about a? don't say anything about america. just think about the rest of the world. it's going on everywhere. latin america we think we are making progress against, those of democratic change in venezuela. and brazil of course sadly is in turmoil but these kinds of things are happening everywhere at the same time. so it isn't just america. so what's your take on what's caused it globally and what should we do about it? >> well, and the last of 99 and the first 2000 i made two speeches. one was in taiwan and the other

one was in oslo to the aspen to speak up the greatest concern about the next century. i set my greatest concern about the next century is the increasing division between rich people and poor people. and not only between rich people and poor people in a country like china or the united states, but also between rich countries and poor countries. i think that has become the most serious problem in the world now. a lot of people think that the world is more and conflict now, wars going on. as a matter fact we have kind of a low level of total the people and conflict right now compared to most time. at that division between rich and poor is becoming greater. i think it causes a lot of polarization and it causes people like in our country to take a radical stance which appealed to the people that are

left out. one of the things that needs to be done for all people is also to get the in jobs and give thea good education, but also to let the people feel like they're being treated fairly by their own government. i think a lot of folks in the united states now don't feel too important things. one, being treated fairly by our government, and secondly, i believe my children can have a better life than i had. we've lost that sense of optimism that each generation is going to be better off. so i think those two things have caused the radical nature of political campaigns, which you just asked me about, in other countries. and i think as well in this country. >> if you look, by and large, the places that have more economic inequality and upward mobility both, because they're

both important, have lots of tensions. there are lots of kinds of tensions. the only places where you see it, when i have seen it, with a slight exception in countries in europe, and particularly affected by the refugee crisis. for example, the austrian election was very close between the candidates. they have almost no inequality and a fair amount of upward mobility but they still feel this identity crisis. do you think that all this diversity we have in our country, in the end we will leave us better off in dealing with it? >> i hope so. i think there's going to be a

reassessment in america by individual citizens and collectively after this election experience we are involved in now. i think a lot of people feel not only alienated by kind of disgusted with some of the campaign rhetoric and the violation of human rights as a subject proposal by a major candidate. that's something that i think is going to be corrected in the united states. what we need to do, in my opinion, these to look back at the only time in history when we have ever had i would say worldwide commitment to the basic moral and ethical principles that shape our great religions and that sort of thing. i was at the end of the second world war. reform the united nations to prevent war, and waited

universal declaration of human rights to treat everybody fairly. we were pretty well abandoned both of those things as you know. the united nations now, the security council doesn't prevent wars, and even our own country is violating a lot of the universal declaration of human rights paragraphs. so those two things i think can be changed. i believe that once we reach the bottom of political idealism and fairness and i would say amnesty between both sides of friendship, i think we are going to have a reaction which i think will make our country even better. [applause] >> what about, let's talk a little about, what about the carter foundation, the carter center, we are nonstate actors,

not government, and we do things with government. we work very closely with government, but isis is a nonstate actor. one of the problems that i think being presented by all of the rise of conflict related to nonstate actors is how to apply norms to them in dealing with them, wind if every country in the world follows the same norms and they don't, more people may die. so i think that, is there some way, do you believe we should have some sort of international convention governing the nongovernmental organizations that nonstate actors were big enough, strong enough, heck, the

gates foundation does a heck of a lot of good. i mean, have you ever given any thought to that about there should be some international standards governing what we do? >> the carter center ties of international standards on monitoring elections come and we've made a lot of progress in that respect. some countries now are outlawing nongovernmental organizations. we have been welcomed 15 or 20 years ago into a lot of countries, and now we find that we are no longer welcome in those countries because we have taken positions that the increase of oppressive governments don't like. so i think the more that in chose to work together in harmony and see where are our common goals and commitments, that would be very helpful. i don't think you and i've ever sat down together to see how the

cgi and the carter center might cooperate and maybe benefit each other's gaps with over and cooperate where we could but i think if we could do that and get other organizations to come in with us, it might be good for you and i to call for a meeting sometime. >> i agree without. [applause] >> i know what you think about the government. let me ask you just one other thing. i got off a little but it don't want us to be too political. but speed don't want to be what? >> to political. [laughter] but one of the things, one of the things that bothers me is all these surveys which show that there's really not a lot of bass level knowledge that you would normally take for granted among the electorate of many countries. people do know what they're getting a fair deal or not.

they are instinctive about that, but they don't necessarily know how their government system works or what the options are there had we stopped doing a good job on civic education in schools? remember, it was a big deal. you couldn't get out of the eighth grade when i was a kid growing up unless, at least we had a really good civics teacher, and do you think we should do more of that? do you think without thinking about it we have let it go? >> human have more -- >> have a basic civic education about how the system works, how does the state government work, how does the federal government work, how and what is made, why midterm elections are for what is a foundation? how do they relat relate to the difficult i get a feeling most

kids get out of high school and never get really serious education in that. >> that's true. get out of universities, too, without it. i think that's true. i will agree with you that the average citizen ought to have a very, i was interesting and exciting way to learn about their government processes and the relationship is between executive and legislative and judicial branches of government. and with the principles are involved. there's only one country in the world that can take the leadership in something like this, and that's our country. i think we ought to be a superpower in every way, not just the strongest military and the most economic influence and cultural influence. but i think we ought to be the number one nation on earth

working for peace. [applause] >> i think we have been to war, a conflict with other countries about 30 times since the second world war. other countries are almost as powerful as ours very carefully avoid war your since 1979, you know, china hasn't been in conflict with anybody. and i think the united states ought to be that way. whenever somebody has a potential conflict in a country, the odyssey why don't we go to washington put because of the united states is for peace, always. i think we ought to be number one in human rights and number one in environmental protection. [applause] >> i say number one in generosity, the people that need help around the world. we need to be number one in

admirable things so that other people will emulate and admire the united states as a true superpower in every way, and not just because we are the strongest. [applause] >> i agree with that. we actually have this, most people think the one thing that our citizens don't know about, most people think we give 10-50% of the federal budget away in foreign aid. and these polls have not changed in 40 years and i've watched them. and, in fact, we give a very small percentage of the budget -- >> like one-fourth of 1%. >> one-fourth of gdp, may be less. and maybe only one, 1.5% of the budget. anything you could probably

construe. we saw an enormous change in that with the middle east. we justified it for a long time in the cold war because we were essentially providing a defense umbrella over europe and in theory they were getting a higher percentage of the gdp back to the world come into developing world in the form of assistance. but i think a number of the things that we do america a lot of good is getting continuous updates in comparative performance of our country and others in areas like you said, that measure good positive things. because our development programs can do a lot of good, but they are still nowhere near as generous as percentagewise asked norway, for example, your and

the british, i have to defend, you know, i've been very close all the way with prime ministers but i've got to give prime minister cameron credit for one thing. he refused even after the crash to do. even after the financial crash he refused to reduce the percentage of their gdp that was going to development assistance and they deserve a lot of credit for that. let me ask you something, since we are all talking about this, about what creates -- how much do you think that people feel the government doesn't treat them fairly and incomes can be tied to the weakening movement of the union in america and how much do you think is the inevitable result of our moving away from manufacturing towards a more service-oriented economy? >> well, i think the reason that most americans feel they are not being treated fairly by the

government is because they are not being treated fairly by the government. [laughter] [applause] >> because, you know, i will say since i left the white house, every administration except one, yours, has reduced taxes on the rich -- the richest people and not taking care of a middle-class, which is almost now eliminated, and poor people. and i think most of the breaks that come along are caused by the changes in congress because the lobbyists who are they putting constant pressure on congress members and giving the money to run for reelection work for the big corporations. i think that change in the tax structure and breaks by going overseas to get you income, those kinds of things are having a very permeating adverse effect on our country and it convinces

the average person on not getting a fair share. i think that's accurate. so we need to change that and hope in the next administration we will see it changed. >> but to be fair, -- >> i'm trying to be fair. >> i've got to defend the president obama of it. his main bump on the upper income people on taxes, cuts to the income tax rate that i establish, you're right, we did raise them. but then upper income people also paid a health care tax so that i know because we did this last year in our family. i think the actual rate that is about 43%, which is higher than it was when i left office because of health care. but the real problem is the absence of what warren buffett wants, which is the buffett rule. that is, people who don't come

primarily from ordinary income still have relatively very low taxes, which is why he says everybody with an income of $1 million or more, whatever the source of it, should pay at least 30%. that would have a big impact on tax status in america. >> that's admirable that he's done that. >> he also wants to give his money away, too. that's further admirable. >> i agree. >> because they're smart investors, it's harder to give away. eventually when they run out of the opportunity to make it, they will be giving it all away. but anyway, i do think that tax taxpayers is important, but the real thing is all these tax shelters and giveaways and all that. that's why we need some very simple rules that say okay, play all the games you want but if

you make x amount you have to pay this. they will always outsmart us enlisted simple. on the way out, we are about to run out of time, what would you say to the young people in the audience about how they should decide what service to do, when to do it, what it is meant to you? i don't think there's any question that the service life you've lived since you left the white house, you look as good you do, you feel as good as you do, you're in the shape that you income i don't think there is -- [applause] -- any question, proverbs are right about that. at the heart he was good. suppose you were, what do you know now that you didn't know that you are 20 that you would say to these young people here?

>> well, i've already mentioned the one thing i've learned and that is extremely poor people are underestimated by us and they're just as good as we are. that's one thing that's very hard to say. at i think i've learned that more indian with habitat for humanity and anything else. including the carter center some. it now we just do with people but never have had a decent home, who worked side-by-side with them to build their own house. they pay full price for the house but they don't pay in interest, and they repay the loans. so that's the way to let people come up by the ow own bootstraps without any of the gator to anybody else. i think the main thing is to have a feeling that all of our christian come and visit other religions, come in and tell us everybody is equal in the eyes of god, at the ought not look out anybody else. but i think in a country we still have an element of renewed understanding that we haven't

solved, for instance, the race issue yet. when i was in office and when you're in office we kind of had a feeling of relief that finally we have resolved the race issue because it could work of martin luther king, jr. and people like that. i now we've begun to see again thathat our african-american neighbors, and others as well, are treated unfairly. they don't get as good an education, they don't get as good jobs. they are the ones who get put in jail and to discriminate against and they are beginning to realize it. if we just listen to what's going on and try to take steps to correct the problems that we face, then we will be much better off as a nation. but it takes a lot of political courage to admit we have made some mistakes, and now let's correct them. but america has always had the right and the ability, maybe it takes too long to say okay, we have made a mistake, let's correct it.

we have done that a lot of times but i believe will do it again. >> let's give him a hand, jimmy carter, and thank you. [applause] >> i had no idea who's going to say that at the end, like i read several months ago somebody was making fun of me in one of these internet articles because they let knives all the things that i have acknowledged error on. they said this guy must be worthless. he said here's five things he said he made a mistake on.

there were millions of decisions, that's not too bad. [laughter] added didn't think of the site of weakest. i think it is a sign of error, of error not to constantly reassess what you were doing. after i do want to talk very mucmuch about this or much about this on them to think because learning so much about it that i was really impressed to see the director of the fbi say that the one thing that i did was start immediately to review what we did to see if we made a mistake when this, the person perpetrated the killings came under our radar screen a few months ago. he said i honestly don't believe yet that i know what we did but we've got to keep looking but if we made a mistake, we always do future people who will need our help to be honest about it, to be forthright about it and figure out what we are doing. i'm so glad your president

carter say this but everybody walks around on egg shells thinking we will be found out that we are not perfect. okay, well, i got used to it years ago. [laughter] edge of god, we all have to come if you want to be judged, particularly in the nongovernmental work, if you want to be judged in a way that inspires other people's confidence and continue to get other people's support, and most of us can't do anything if we don't do that, we have to be willing to constantly assess what we are doing and not to be afraid of making a mistake and acknowledging it and changing course. that's the one thing that i would say i found so rewarding in the years since i left office and have been working at my foundation, is about you know, i just have a lot of sympathy with people in politics. they were afraid to ever make mistakes, that they would get beat up on.

but if you are not running for anything, you should try to set a good example because everybody is making mistakes every day, and it's the unexamined life that ends up being unsatisfying. not one that is rigorously examined including for error. i was proud to your president carter say that. time will tell us about sender begins raise. who is h running against and wht does it look like currently? >> guest: he's running against kelly ward, former state senator and is a very tight race. actually no, it's not a tight race. he's up by about 26 points over ward according to the latest cnn poll. but it's a very nasty race and ward went on television recently and said mccain is too old to be reelected and she also made

the point as a former physician that she's as i know the average american can average american male's lifespan is not 86 years old and that's how old making would be at the end of the term if you want a six term. right now he is coming back his birthday was yesterday. he just turned 80, so she's saying it's time for a change. he's been in washington way too long. long. but as i mentioned to cnn, the poll showed up by 26 points. so it looks, it looks to be cruising to reelection. however, the was a breitbart poll that showed only up by four points with 23% undecided. so the cnn poll is far more accurate but maybe there could be a surprise. >> host: us for support from his mccain isn't as strong in mc cycles previous when it comes to primary elections?re >> guest: what mccain has said is this is the toughest race of his life.

he's in the political fight of his life. so he's certainly takin taken ts very same slick and feels threatened. he had a primary challenge in 2010 from former republican congressman j.d. hayworth, a conservative talk show host and some who had served in congress. haworth was seen as a serious threathreat to mccain leading be end mccain won that primary quite handily. so we'll ward get closer than haworth? who knows. in either case it looks likee mccain is likely headed towards the gym election after today. >> host: let's turn to florida and the race that features the congresswoman a former dnc had debbie wasserman schultz. what's the condition of theion h race? >> guest: she's runningm against a law professor. bernie sanders has endorsed him it hasn't campaigned for him but

that's, coupled with the fact wasserman schultz is reviled by many standards support and liberals since this hacking of the dmz server showing that she and her staff actually favored hillary clinton in the primary. that has generated a lot of money and support for 10. however, it still a district that favors washington that it was mitchell's. she's been in congress since 2004. she's represented this redon district since 2013. recent poll shows were with a pretty healthy lead, this is a district that hillary clinton one handily over standards in the march primary. .. schultz will probably hang on, but canova has a lot of money and is running a strong campaign. he has been on the air attacking her and she has been defended by the outside group, patriot majority. in these house primaries, it can

be hard to stay in florida with the race featurg senator marco rubio. how does he stand expense this challenger? >> guest: rubio is up big on challenger, up 40 points according to last poll, carlos beruff the multimillionaire builder. he is running a donald trump style populist campaign. rubio is way ahead even though beruff put $8 million of his owp money in the race and attacked rubio with the television ads. those ads didn't make ' difference.t he is conceding the race. he doesn't know how to quit but he hasn't been on the campaign trail that much in recent days. looks like he is acknowledging he is probably not going to win it. rubio barely acknowledging his primary opponent. he is looking ahead to the general election against u.s. rep patrick murphy who is expected to win the democraticoo

primary today. he has a 5 point lead over murphy. still early. murphy doesn't have is great name i.d. rubio polling well with hispanics, 94-41% over hispanic voters in florida. >> host: democratic side in florida, two sitting house members going after the democratic nomination of the florida senate seat. tell us about that. >> u.s. rep patrick murphy and u.s. rep alan grayson. he is running as the liberal challenger. murphy is only 33 years old. he doesn't have a lot of experience. he gave money to mitt romney in the 2008 campaign. grayson was trying to exploit that, arguing to voters he is the real democrat or he is the liberal democrat. he is in the elizabeth warren wing of the party but he has been hurt by ethics scandals. the, house ethics committee is looking into his operation of a hedge fund while he was a

sitting member of congress. he is also has been plagued by domestic abuse charges from his ex-wife. that caused a couple of groupses, liberal groups to unendorse him. he is, because of that, he is running well behind in the race although he has higher name i.d. than patrick murphy. he is not expected to win. murphy is expected to cruise to victory today and on to the general election with marco rubio. >> host: alex bolton giving as you run-down in primary races in arizona and florida. thank you. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> we'll have coverage of other primaries tonight live on c-span. live picture from the national press club this afternoon for a discussion with education officials on k-12 education programs and college affordability. >> education to be honest, has not been a top tier issue in this campaign season.

still there is plenty for us to look at and discuss and debate. during the democratic and republican primaries and at both parties conventions intra-party disputes erupted over everything from college tuition to charter schools. the education planks of the party's platforms were hard fought, especially on the democratic side. and since the conventions there's been a lot of expectation -- speculation, how closely the candidates will hue to the platforms on hot topics, testing opt-outs, teacher valuations, school choice and student loans. on the campaign trail the candidates have stirred things up with sound bites on education in the case of donald trump reporters honestly have little else but those remarks and the party platform to go on.

meanwhile hillary clinton has laid out policy ideas on a growing list of education topics, from early childhood education to campus sexual assault. with 69 days to go, the stakes riding on the outcome are high. after all the obama administration has had a very large footprint in education. using its fist calf and its regulatory might, the administration has not been at all shy about exerting federal power over schools and how to pay for them. so obama's exit will mark a major milestone in the history of washington's influence over schools, educators, and students around the country. so now it's time to get a little smarter. i asked her what is at stake in this election for education.

this afternoon we have two panels. the first is preschool through high school and the second is looking at higher education. at this time i would love to introduce our very accomplished speakers. the is lily garcia, she served as president of the three million member of the national education association for the past two years. she was utah's teacher of the year in 1989. she is the first latina to head the organization and the first woman to be in a role since 1983 she served as democrats for education reform since september of last year. he is a partner in the law firm

lowenstein sandler. prior to joining the firm he was an associate of professor of law at the seton hall university law school center for social justice. where he ran a litigation clinic last but definitely not least, andy smeek, is partner at bellwether education partners. he is president of the maryland state board of education. his stints in government service have included deputy assistant secretary of the u.s. department of education under president george w. bush, and a stint as deputy education commissioner new jersey under governor chris christie. so, welcome to you all and i'm eager to get started. first just a few framing remarks. i have to address the elephant

that's not in the room. and that is, the absence today of a speaker who is promoting donald trump's campaign for president. we have worked aggressively in the past month to recruit someone. a policymaker, education analyst, an advocate. we tried every channel that we could think of and that included of course the trump campaign itself, and the republican national committee among many other avenues. alas in the end our efforts were unsuccessful. i think it's a question of timing as much as anything. congress is in recess and the trump campaign just recently brought on board an education advisor to help shape the education agenda. but in the meantime we have great panelists and we'll have a great discussion and we'll watch

for what comes forward from the trump campaign. as i mentioned it's a turning point right now in the federal role in education. an era is ending as the every student succeeds act replaces the much debated, no child left behind act. this election notwithstanding, the federal role in schools is shifting. we're also seeing serious strains in the education reform movement. tensions are coming to therfore cut across party lines and in sensitive questions of race and class. the debate over charter schools, for example, is laying bare these tensions for democrats. even as broader school choice issues like vouchers divide many democrats from republicans. at the same time though, there's

not a lot of detail from the candidates on their plans for k-12 education. so i want to start out with that, kind of to look at, what are the key fault lines on education between clinton and trump, and the fault lines within the democratic and republican party in 2016. kind of how those decisions are shaping shaping this campaign. lily, can we start with you? >> sure, you will have to tell me when to stop. this is just like four hours. >> we don't have four hours. >> no, no, no. >> we have 20 minutes. >> i have my friend going -- [inaudible] here is the thing with education, you can find as many democrats who love charter schools and teach for america and test scores as you can republicans.

it is unfortunate. i thought, i thought for a long time, you know, like how did that happen, we ended up with 14 years of no child left untested? how did we end up with ted kennedy congratulates george bush over what to me has been an incredible disaster? i taught in salt lake city. i taught in homeless shelters. i taught kids that were living in their cars. to judge what i would do as a teacher by how well my kids did on a standardized test would have been ludicrous but i really do believe some very good people, democrats were always saying equal opportunity, equal access equal, equal, and then you had the republicans going results, we have to have results. those are all good things, we want results. they went equal, results, equal results. we just will stop worrying about what we actually invest in schools. we'll just demand equal test score results and it just took

on a life of its own. >> how does that play with you? do you think the comments about it being a disaster? why are there folks on the democratic side of the aisle who favor education reform? what do you think about she just said. >> yeah, would i want to start first, i think there is so much more in common democrats have as compared to republicans who want to eliminate a federal role in education policy, which would mean there wouldn't be national imperatives around standards and accountability. wouldn't be national imperatives around teacher preparation. national imperatives to the charter school programs to support options for. we have so much more common in democrats and progressives in our commitment to equity, equal opportunity and making sure we have some national floor to undergird that. within the party, i would strongly disagree with the idea that assessment is about whether or not our children are college and career ready are problematic. i come from north new jersey. in my city we had decades barely one in 10 children were college ready at time they graduated

from high school. we need to know that well before they hit 12th grade to provide interventions that our young people need so they can be college and career ready. if you're not college and career ready you have simply no shot fulfilling your potential. that data is used in formative, from a formative standpoint to provide information to our teachers an our educators that they can make individualized interventions in the lives of our young people. and so the reason that you have a broad majority of democrats, had 43 out of 46 democratic united states senators support accountability. you've seen mayors and elected officials who are democrats and civil rights rooted democrats throughout this country support standards, support accountability, support choice because these programs are working for our young people. when done right they support our educators to empower young people. >> so right there, we've seen kind of a, you know, articulation the differences within the democratic party over how we kind of frame issues

around accountability and testing. that is a good example. andy, looking to you know, as a republican, you know, there have been, you know issues of reform, have often united democrats and republicans. so i would love to kind of hear what you think about where the fault lines are between the parties now, also within the republican party? >> well, between the parties, you're right, there was this era of good feelings. there was consensus time, call it decade, ncob era, at least early stage. but i think a lot of conservatives, especially among the republican party ended up having miss giving how heavy-handed it seemed uncle sam had gotten. it is not that there are republicans across the board disagree with there being standards. it is should the federal government tell states what the standards ought to look like? not republicans are against testing.

should the federal government say which test, how often, most importantly how they're embedded in the accountability system. all of this sort of falls into the big overarching question who should have authority? who gets the power to make these decisions? a long time many of us were motivated for way too long too many kids, especially low income kids weren't being well-served. they were persistently under performing schools and districts and federal government in the first iasa, then nclb, said that the federal government can do whole lot more here and ought to do more. we saw the downsize of that teachers and parents and school system leaders not feeling like they were able to do their jobs like they used to. so the that is where a lot of conservatives are coming from. the fault lines internally there are some, i wish i could tell you the right is completely united or aligned on things but there are questions about vouchers and tax credits. for example, i think education

next just released a poll, showing for the first time there is more unanimity among democrats on validity of vouchers than among republicans. there are a lot of suburban and rural republicans in the states who are question school choice in ways they hadn't in the past. there are governors like governor christie who pushed hard on teacher evaluation reform and other republican governors who have serious misgivings whether or not the federal government, let alone states should tell administrators how to assess their teachers. all of this, if i could take a step back, we're, i think we'll look back on this era and say most of the issues we understood for a long time, they're being consensus or there were clear party or idealogical demarcations, that era seems to be over to me. >> you mentioned a newer a of esa and pushback you described was incorporated into deliberations that led into the

new law. so as we look at a new administration coming in, will the federal role even matter? will it matter who is president anymore? >> absolutely. i think we have a dramatic difference. we have on one hand a candidate where i have seen no evidence he is done anything for any child in his life who wasn't named trump. we have secretary clinton who has 40-year record of fighting for children, who after she graduated from yale law school, one of the most elite institutions in the world, easily make a lot of money, she worked for children's defense fund. as first lady of arkansas, she helped to catalyze standards and accountability in that state. first lady of the united states, accountability and choice throughout the country. children's health insurance program. supporting nclb as u.s. senator. expanding educational opportunities for girls and women throughout the country at secretary of state. it is not even close in terms -- let me say this last thing. the only thing we've seen in any foray by mr. trump into

education was trump university which was attempt to defraud working families of precious resources to get a credential that wasn't worth piece of paper it was written on. >> we heard a lot about secretary clinton's background in education at the convention certainly. how much that would, you know, play a role in her as president i'm not sure but, lily, i mean, looking at beyond her own background in what she did decades ago now, what is it in, you know, her policies makes you think that she would really make a difference in education? >> other, let me tell you where she won me. i actually did have a chance to talk to candidates, federal candidates, senators, congressman. she came in too. i asked them all the same question, what are your plans? what are your policies? what would your priorities be? she gave me the best answer i

have ever heard when i asked someone that question. if you ever interview with me, this is question you want to ask. i said, what's, what's the plan? and she answered me with questions. she answered me by saying, what are teachers saying will move the ball? what are they saying are the obstacles getting in their way? do you think you could put together some special ed teachers, a group of just plain, ol' special ed teachers i can pick their brains, say what is it that would really help you take these kids to another level. >> she was open to input? >> she was not only open to input what it told me, i know she is also saying that to parents, to business leaders, to her colleagues, it is not just the national education association. but she said i will start by asking the people who will be

asked to implement something. asked to implement those things. why wouldn't we start there. that's what they didn't do in 2002 when they passed no child left behind. they didn't ask a actual educator, how would this work. >> andy, i put this to you what would really -- you talked a lot about being open to input and listening to the people actually doing it. i know mr. trump has talked about that as a strength of his. that he is flexible and that he talks to people and takes advice and, so, you know, presumably, if it he were elected would turn to republican education experts, perhaps like yourself, and others, how do you think it would be different under trump presidency in education than say a second, hillary clinton presidency?

>> i'm going to give you the worst answer but i think there is something in this which is, i just don't know. partially, i mean largely because i just don't know what, like idealogical, philosophical priors mr. trump brings into these issues but i also, i have to say the same thing about secretary clinton on some of these matters. i know longer know honestly how she feels about charter schools. for example, if her opening bid, what do families want, what if she went to newark or washington, d.c. and or detroit and families said, we want more choice. we're tired of our kids being assigned to schools that don't work. or, according to the pdk poll came out or education next poll that came out, somewhere between call it, 3/4 and 2/3 of families of vote es are opposed to idea of opt-out. if voters are saying, no, we actually like the idea of all students being tested, would she

say great, i'm also in favor of that? mr. trump, i just don't know if he believes in local control and state control. i don't know if he believes in charters, vouchers, tax credits. some of the above. >> it is in the republican platform of course. >> sure. >> those issues are both in the republican platform. so you have questions about to what extent a trump administration would carry out the positions that are laid out in the republican platform? >> yes because generally that is the way of presidents, that they don't always, they don't feel like a great burden of the platform. they're going to decide for themselves. but, whatever you think of mr. trump, let's say he is flexible when it comes to some of his prior positions on issues. he is evolving. he is changing and he may well decide that what he thought a month ago or year ago is different than what he is going to decide were he elected come

january 21st. >> so, i wanted to ask you, why are you not supporting trump? >> well, there is a whole host of reasons. focusing on education, i don't know what he stands for on these issues. i just, there, i mean occasionally he will mention something about school choice which i think is terrific but when it comes to other issues like standards and assessments and low income kids and gifted kids i just don't know. and the story here for me and other conservatives, not in my professional lifetime have i gotten to august 30th of an election year and had to say in front of a group of people i don't know what the republican nominee believes on these issues. and perhaps in the next week i'm told there will be a plan. we'll know a whole lot more. but currently, if i were under oath i would have to say i'm sorry, i just can't tell you. >> so, obviously you're not out

there stumping for trump. what is the nea, i think, it is a nation's largest union, correct. >> we are the largest union. >> so what are you doing to promote the hillary campaign? >> everything humanly possible. national education association is 3 million members. we represent roughly 1 in every 100 americans is member of the national education association. our circle of every influence is incredible. and i know exactly where hillary clinton stands on charter schools. she stands on evidence. and one of the things that she said to me quite clearly, i want to do what works. so i loved that someone was sitting in front of me unafraid to say, show me the evidence of what works. tell me why you believe something doesn't work. and when you take a look at community schools, when you take a look at early college high

schools, when you look at the impact of class size and preschool, all of those things i don't want a president is ideologue, saying answer is boom. >> none of those things are charter schools. do you know where hillary clinton stands on charter schools? >> what she said including before miss garcia said, she supports what works including in the public charter sector. we're happy she focuses as well on evidence because there is evidence that shows from stand ford's credo institute, young people in charter school urban cities, where sometimes we had our worst traditional public schools, 40 days of additional learning in math in urban charter schools and 28 additional days of learning in literacy. to the extent she follows the evidence which is something she has done throughout the year we would expect her to do what she said repeatedly, that she says she supports high-performing charter schools.

said that to the nea and other contexts which we've been apart. that is also been her record for many decades as well because she support what works for children. that's what we do. whatever works for babies we support. >> are you worried that the democratic party is turning away from the education reform agenda? >> i'm not worried about that. i think there are elements of the party opposed to charter schools and other elements of reform as well for a long period of time and they didn't go anywhere. we had a his rick leader in barack obama who stood up against some of those interests and produced historic change for kids. but simply because we had this hero in the president doesn't mean that these other elements went away. so those elements remain and we have to continue to work with those members of the party where we can. but to the extent we think they will stand in the way of what is right for our children and country we'll have to push against that. >> another issue that i'd say a

year ago we thought was probably going to be a factor maybe a little more than it has been issue of common core state standards. andy, from your perspective, you know, it is, we oh, this is going to be major issue in the primaries. we have some candidates who at least, jeb bush, particularly very pro common core. others started running away from it after having supported it. and, so what do you think? how has it played in the election so far and do you think it is going to come up again, you know, in the homestretch? >> i don't know. you're right, there was a long period of time where common core was a non-issue. then a period of time where it was the hottest education issue. there are many states, i don't know if it is most, but many states have now become acclimated to the idea of new, higher standards and the debate

about how common core came about which is totally legitimate discussion, should the federal government had any role? should major foundations had a role, doesn't make sense for there to be common standards across all states? those are questions we should be debating. putting those aside, many educators, including in my state will say at this point we're now in the business of making sure these standards work. please don't change our tests. please don't change our standards again. please don't change teacher valuation, you need to give us a chance to do what is right for kids. i don't know if it speaks for all states, all regions, or it is going on but seems like the temperature has been turned down on the politics of common core. now much more about implementation, i think. >> right. do you all have anything you want to mention about common core? >> i agree. that is a very good characterization. i remember when they were putting it together and folks came to the nea and like everyone else, all the teachers

i know rolled their eyes, oh great, the next shiny thing. but i was reading them. i read the sixth grade common core standards in language arts, i taught sixth. give a opinion. give reason and evidence for your opinion. explain. now you're talking. then what they did they took the best parts of common core, oh, you can't put that on standardized test. we won't do that, we'll do the standardized test thing. it was implementation, not standards themselves. >> and assessments. along with the assessments. >> and using the assessments for something they were never designed to be used for, telling a parent that this is all you need to know about your kid is the standardized testing. >> or to evaluate teachers. >> or to label your school. no single standardized test was ever designed to do that. so you used test data poorly. of course you're going to get pushback. >> i think we have to be very careful, in the republican

party's platform to eliminate federal education, that would be a situation which 50 states would have to come to their own set of standards at a time when our young people have to compete on the global stage. if we think that 50 different states working to figure it out on their own individually are going to create a situation which our young people can compete with china and compete with young people out of india and all throughout this planet we're smoking something. we have to have a national floor and thin obviously states ought to have the capacity to innovate on top of that floor. . . one test tells you everything about anything. i'm a trained attorney. you have to pass the bar. that means that we want to measure some foundational skills and competencies to know you're

ready. kids have been tested forever. ting part that we have now, now we use assessment data and now we say the same thing about babies but adults. when kids are taking assessments and they get a c or f, we are cool with that. maybe the adults can do more too. now all of a sudden, we have a challenge. >> you brought up exactly the next issue i wanted to discuss. go ahead, i want to talk about teacher evaluation a little bit and where we stand going into this new era. >> thank you, and i'm excited to talk about. i don't know how mr. trump comes down on this but it is important, if the question is how do we make sure many of our students including disadvantaged, low-income students, assigned to low-performing schools for way

too long, how do we set up a system, there was one mindset that we need the solution, a single right answer from the federal government that use it is biggest brains around that we know what the answer is and we are going to say it from the federal government and we are going to tell states to do it and tell districts to do it and districts will tell teachers to do it and everything will work out wonderfully. there's a different mind subpoena set that i have and people on the right have which is pluralism, america is different. that's our great strength and lots of communities and lots of states trying to figure this out working together when necessary and apart when necessary, they're going to come up with great solutions, maybe different from alabama, maryland. i think a lot of the pushback that we have seen in the 15 years, on the right to the federal government's activities,

is that the federal government has told us that we know best on standards, we know best on teacher evaluation and a lot of teachers and schools are saying, no, you don't. >> so at this time i do want to ask folks in the audience here if you have any questions, we will have someone coming around with a mic and i would like you to introduce yourself and -- and try to make it a question. i mean, we were interested in thoughts but to try to make it a brief question, and i also would invite folks participating in the webcast to enter questions in the webcast platform and we will try to get to as many as we can. does anyone have a question to any of our speakers and introduce yourself? >> thank you to the panel. my name is robert, i'm the executive director of rural school and comty