[inaudible] [inaudible] >> in the media we talk about this issue about how bad it is. >> in some ways -- could you repeat the question? >> she wants to know how much things have changed and how much they haven't. well, it is strange in the south because in some way the south is resegregation. in alabama the black politician made a big mistake, the whites came to them and said the klutz just redistrict things in your going to have the safe black

districts and worked on have our white districts and they went for it. now they realize they made a bad mistake because you have these safe black districts in these all-white districts. you have a republican establishment that controls everything in the schools in montgomery it's interesting. there are three target schools. and i visited two of them. in the schools they are about one third black, one third asian american because there are a couple of career and automobile plants near there. so a lot of korean americans and a third white. people go there because they get a good education. i would have set my daughter there. they are great schools. i would not send my daughter to the all black schools that are just holding pens for these kids. so that is the trouble. and the trouble. in the educational system is so bad. alabama state university, the all-black university is terrible. these people graduate from their barely literate. many of them. some get good education, good education, suffer to say that for some people don't get much of education there.

there is no pressure to change that. it's a new kind of ghetto mentality. i don't know know where we go from there. but at least black people can go where they want in the south. they can walk, they can go, it's go, it's funny because i had a white person who read the manuscript and i talked about white drinking fountains, some were colored fountains sunset colored only and some said white only. and they and they so what are you talking about? there were not white only on the fountains, they didn't have to, it, it was assumed there white only. they are colored only on some of the fountains but not white only. so the apartheid world, it was not created until the early years of the 20th century by the way. that's what's interesting. the jim crow rules. that's when they came in a talked about the transit system

being segregated in mobile. up until until then it was a very different world. up until then black people could go to restaurants restaurants. the south is at a crucial juncture now and we'll see which way things go. >> on that note. >> okay, thank you very much. [applause]. [inaudible] [inaudible] >> most in the white house historically who spend their

whole lives hungering and thirsting for this edition find themselves unsatisfied when they reach it. it often leave the white house disappointed, disillusioned or broken. very few of them leave historically. wishing for more. that tells you something about maybe human ambition and about political ambition in particular >> you can watch this and other programs online epic tv.org. [inaudible] [inaudible]

hello and welcome to the heritage foundation. i am andrew, thank you all for joining us today in this auditorium. i want to take an opportunity to remind you to silence your cell phones. for anyone watching online, you are welcome to submit questions by emailing speaker at heritage.org. hosting today's program is lindsay burke. she researches and writes on federal and state education issues. she focuses on reduces and empowering families with school choice. >> thank you andrew. thank you for being here today and everybody watching online as well. we are excited to welcome vicki to heritage today to discuss her

thorough and really interesting new book. she does not mix words at all, the very title fairly arse of miseducation of america's children. she argues it is time to end it not and federal intervention and education. as she explains in her book, the federal government left education alone for about 100 years recognizing that it was the purview of state and localities. but gradually federal restraint gave away and by 1979 we saw the first cabinet level agency for education established. with a burst of the u.s. department of education. today, that agency houses nearly 5000 employees, manages over 150

federal education programs and has a discretionary budget of about 70,000,000,000 dollars. i might add it is really the tip of the iceberg. we see this parasitic relationship with state education agencies as well who have to be responsive to the federal mandates and dictates. as a result they have increased their staffing over the decades as well. so what have we gotten for this federal largess as doctor contends is not approved education outcomes. it's it's red tape, bureaucracy and wasteful spending. the u.s. has increasingly centralized education policy to increase its spending, to increase programs and efforts such as, core. it's interesting to note that other countries have gone in the opposite direction, decentralizing education decision-making authority. and empowering families ' competition.

so is there a better path for the u.s.? can we to embrace decentralization and competition in education? i will epic answer that question. that is a little more in her discussion but we do have a major opportunity to advance education choice through innovative options like education savings account. to restore private lending and the higher education market as a major step to also reducing federal intervention. in general just limiting federal which is a state local issue. doctor -- is a senior fellow and director of women for school choice program at the independent women form. prior to that, she was associate director of education studies and director of the goldwater institute education policy initiative.

she received her phd in political philosophy from the institute for philosophic studies at the university of dallas. please joining in welcoming our speaker. [applause]. >> in afternoon. i would like to thank lindsay burke and andrew for putting this wonderful event together. it is a thrill to be here at the heritage foundation. thank you all for coming to talk about this very important topic that actually touches every one of our lives. hank you for listening to an opening discussion on my new book about the federal department of education, failure. failure. as i was traveling here i recalled the word of a former democratic member of congress from illinois who is a former teacher and lawyer, about his

vision to the department of education. it would be a pure fountain from which a pure stream could be poured upon all of the states. we want to a controlling head by which conflicting systems in different states can be harmonized by which there can be uniformity. i take the high ground that every child is entitled to an education at the hands of somebody and that this ought not to be left to the caprice of individuals or the state so far as we have any authority to regulate it. sound familiar? well it is probably not we think. you think. this argument was actually made by representative samuel moulton of illinois, 150 years 50 years ago. one year before the u.s. department of education was originally created back in 1867.

as the title of my book suggests, i have a different view about the supposedly purity of the d.c. string pouring onstage on stage like my home state of arizona. it was widely hailed as one of the national leaders in school choice. i see we have some arizonans in the audience, go arizona. i was inspired to write this book as we were approaching the 30 year history of the u.s. department of education. i wondered, are we better off because of it? frankly i do not think we are. based on the increasing calls of the departments abolition this presidential election cycle, i think it is fair to say a lot of us think it's time to pull the plug on the department of education. but what does that really mean? if the department of history teaches us anything it's that government bureaucracies are not like fine wine. they don't get better with age.

history also teaches us that bureaucracies are resilient. u.s. department of education was downgraded, defunded and reshuffled from one federal agency for another throughout much of the 19th and 20th century. rather than abolishing it in the 1980s we decided to keep it around and tried to use it to promote an excellence agenda. the result today,, core. this is not what we were promised at all back in 1979. we colleague u.s. department of education was supposed to do three things. one, in prove student achievement. two, supplement, not supplant state local government. three, improve management and efficiency of federal education programs. so how did that turn out? let's turn turn to number one. improves student achievement. achieve across subject and grade levels on the nation's report card as well as various international tasks have been

essentially flat during the periods preceding u.s. department of education and up until today. as far as i can tell from the track record we are spending above average amounts for student achievement. we're spending up to one third more than top-performing countries in the world. the the u.s. department of education was also supposed to supplement, not supplant state and local government. our founding fathers never intended for the federal government to be a quote, unquote a partner with the state and education, much less the boss. in fact the word education does not even appear in our constitution. by going along with this partnership it has been a bad deal for students, schools, and taxpayers. turn the no child left behind era for example from 2002 until 2009 the department of education's paperwork burden of

education's paperwork burden increase by an estimated 65% and was larger than the burden imposed by the department of defense, energy, and justice, to name a few. with that, the administrative burden is now so great that most employees at state education departments are hired just to deal with federal education programs. today programs. today in the common core era, spending is estimated to be $80 billion according to a former u.s. department of education official. that is nearly 20 times the entire 4,400,000,000 race to the top program that was supposed to incentivize state reform. what about number three? a u.s. department of education listed improved management and efficiency of federal education program. after 30 years in operation the government accountability office or gao found that the education

department was one of a dozen agencies operating nearly 300 federal, social and education training programs. . . from 1980 through 2010, the department of education program spending increased by more than $57 million. outpacing student enrollment by more than 5-1. so after more than three decades

with the department of education, the educational performance of american student has not improved in spite of massive spending increases funneled through the department. the department has not achieved the efficiencies reduce paperwork or better management of federal programs or filing more money through the department is really going to improve education in the united states. on the contrary, such notions have no constitutional basis even if the u.s. department of education were getting great results. to improve the promises of more flexibility. there's no evidence that

officials in the federal government including those in the u.s. department of education no best. neither do that matter state officials. the key difference for those of us that believe in constitutional federalism is that state citizens are best situated to hold state lawmakers accountable and enact reforms that actually work. the u.s. department of education is often a hindrance in obstacle to effective programs that parents want him to children are succeeding. parents are concerned about subjecting their children to the common cortecommon cortes to bes are opting their children out of testing and droves. does this look familiar to anyone? has anyone gotten one of these letters is a letter sent out in late december from the u.s. department of education to all

states of education. i call it a happy new year nasty gram exercising there any legal rights to direct the upbringing education of their children they decided to opt their children out of the common core influence test. what do we get in return? this latter from the u.s. department of education sending tips to the state chiefs on how you can threaten schools and students. it's threatening to withhold our money from our students and our schools unless we totaled nine. it's time to end federal control in the u.s. department of

education. each time these efforts failed because neither thought to truly evil old department of education and instead beginning in 1868, the department was downgraded and changed what we call the department was reshuffled around until ultimately it was restored to full cabinet member department in 1979. restoring the constitutional authority over education requires a genuine abolition plan. history has shown that in the past half measures they will not prevent the u.s. department of education. it's a costly pass through for the political agenda that washington, d.c. and special interest groups all at the expense of school children and taxpayers. that reality is the foundation of any blueprint to abolish the

department of education. the first would be the dc opportunity scholarship program as the name suggests it is a dc program that has a constitutional basis that i would have a privately managed. there is no reason how the u.s. department of education evil in the opportunity scholarship program particularly since through the efforts of the department of education. by the departments with works division and they tried to kill it by attrition. number two, post secondary for veterans and dependents. it should be administered by veterans affairs.

finally the right for civil rights moved to the department of justice since it does perform constitutionally sanctioned work. however come as we are going to discuss in a moment, since there won't be any u.s. department of education plans, any funding it would see to oversee the u.s. department of education programs would be restored. now, i won't go through the remaining more than 120 department programs administered by 29 offices and 4600 employees. but here is an overview have to eliminate the u.s. department of education through what i call strategic dismantling. strictly speaking, strategic dismantling does eliminate a single u.s. department of education program. it simply transfers programs, management and associated funding back to the state. we couldn' could be getting ride physical plant and the program

administrative overhead and associated personnel that would be returned to taxpayers in the form of a tax rebate. the remaining $260 billion associated program funding along with another estimated $275 million. the state would be administered to the state education agencies. taxpayers in the states would no longer fund the programs in the federal government, but would instead pay for them through the estate tax is untold the program's pre-existing expiration date. continuation of the programs previously administered by the u.s. department of education would depend on taxpayers dinged them necessary and effective enough for the funding in the states. but what happens to schools during this transition?

this is one of the questions i get most often. it's one of considering that as we stand right now in the prevailing relationship in the state anstates and federal gove, federal funding lasts roughly one to five years depending on the program and federal funding is by no means guaranteed to cover 100% of the actual cost much less the paperwork and over head burdens. so they've already experienced uncertainty by relying on federal funding. what's more roughly every decade or so the successive administrations assume office in, students, schools, teachers and taxpayers are subjected to the new nationwide education agendas and mandates that require expensive replacement of the previous administrations programs with winds from the current administration. what makes strategic dismantling different is that once the control over education programs and funding is returned to the states, lawmakers and taxpayers,

pairings and educators can work more closely together at the local levels to better and sure clear education policy priorities customized to meeting the specific needs of students and communities across the state. without all the chaos, cost and the peoplcostingthe people of ts several decades of federal leadership and education. now is the time to end the department of education once and for all. i'm like 36 years ago, today we have thriving examples in the state education programs and ofd services are working for students, their families and taxpayers. there are school choice programs in 30 states and the district of columbia. there are 26 voucher programs, 26 voucher programs and tax scholarship programs, nine individual tax credit deduction programs in five educational savings account programs.

and together, these programs are helping more than a million school children and families. not to mention, the millions more attending public district, charter, home and online schools all their parents choice. the dc didn't build any of those programs. citizens of the states did. and these programs are improving student achievement and introducing competition for students all at a fraction of what we are told we should be spending. more than 30 years after the creation of the department of df education, students, taxpayers and the country are not better off but we can be. after decades of waving the barrier to the federal role in education under the guide of hardening the state governments it is time to dissolve the partnership and abolish the

department of education once and for all. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you so much content is excellent. we will take some questions from the audience if there are some but i would like to take it off and let you take over. what do you say to someone who says the states were doing a great job before there was significant federal intervention how can we be certain that we are actually going to see improvements if we hand it back over this is something of a critique that you hear how do you respond to that? >> tha >> that is the number one critique and thankfully we have been hearing that since the progressive era. what really runs through the core of the thinking that somehow these he knows best is that we can't just trust the

states. what's interesting in the history leading up to what we now have is early on before the civil war era there was what i would call constitutional circumspection there was such respect for the constitution. president washington, jefferson, james madison he tried more than anybody else even during the constitutional convention. several times more when he was president he wanted a federal role in education so badly but he said in so many others have until the amend the constituti constitution, the congress has no authority. obviously we solve that gave way and had no longer were we

looking at enumerated powers we were looking at this the spending clause. it's in the national interest for the federal government, for the national government to be taking the view of education. this lack of respect for the constitution really coincides with the disdain and disrespect and disregard for parents in the state. so, i think to answer your question, if you look at the performance of the u.s. department of education, we gave them a fighting chance more than 30 years. we put the experts in charge and what we have is no better than spending a lot more and that is the best case scenario. so i would say we certainly couldn't do any worse. we certainly couldn't spend any more and if you look at the scientific findings on the more than 60 choice programs i progre

state we are doing a heckuva loa lot better. that's what we should be expanding not dc. for the first time i think that we really saw some significant federal intervention of the national defense education act and there was a sort of idea and there was a national defense component to it. there is a wink that the feds were trying to get at and we totally left out for the way they don't even try to justify it. the act of 58.

barry goldwater objected to it and he objected first and foremost because there was no constitutional role. this argument really resonates with me. if the good people in the state of arizona have any funding gaps we are more than capable of making up for it. they send to washington and come back to us. so i think it's rather than

funneling it through as goldwater said minus the brokerage fee we would be getting much, much better. to look at how many extra employees at universities, how many employees it school districts come how many extra employees have the state departments of education or even a local school district. can you give us some idea to also compare the 50,000 at the federal level but other savings we might get by giving an idea of the quantity of those people at other levels? >> that is a terrific question and hard and fast numbers don't

exist. they are estimates but i can tell you what you'r we are seeim the historical record let's just take school districts for example. if you look at the ratio starting from the 1950s of schoolteachers to administrative staff, it used to be futures dominated. now we are seeing teachers and administrators are about equal in on some states average outnumber teacher teachers of te see as a general growth. unfortunately, there are not specific annual numbers that you would be able to quantify. i wish those numbers did exist but i can tell you that off the record, state superintendence will tell you that as much as i've been told 90% or more of their staff simply deal with federal programs.

they are not taking the billboards out on this and certainly they are not advertising it. it would be very controversial but i'm hearing that from a lot of state superintendence. i'm sorry i don't have a better answer for you. >> can you talk about other countries that are decentralizing that and are there any that have gone this far to eliminate the department of education? >> if you look at most countries it is interesting to me when the countries particularly european countries, certainly china, various asian countries have high degrees of centralization and what people challenge me on is see these countries are doing well because they have very strict government control. these countries are also about

most cases the size of one of our states, so first thing off the bat even though they have these countries that are about the size of one of our states in most cases, they will have standards. but they give schools, parents, autonomy, look at these very socialistic countries for example sweden. one of the best countries on earth is our neighbor to the north.

just to stave off. canada does have poor people and children who speak other languages and canada also spends less but it's also very decentralized and most probably don't know it because it is still commonplace. what matters most is the power of parents and empowering teachers, let them be the professionals they are. people start getting nervous when i talk about teachers. i make a distinction between the rank-and-file teacher and the politics of the teachers union and what parents pick their schools and teachers and let there be competition. and that is what spurs that continuous improvement that we are seeing in the top performing countries at a fraction of the price.

>> i have kind of a two-part question. first is what do you think the most effective form of school choice is like the vouchers and how to grow the programs and create more programs across the country. >> that is an excellent question and i will tell you being from arizona is a lot of fun because generally in the programs we are the first out of the gate but then florida usually implements. it's so interesting we will be celebrating the legacy they towards the end of this month and just because we fund the

schools through the government doesn't mean the government knows best. some people would say we should get the government completely out. okay that is going to take more than an hour. so, dealing with the way things are now, what i love about education savings accounts as you know, education savings accounts basically all operate the same way. parents who don't pay for a public education for their children simply inform the state and the state deposits 90% of the funding that it would have sent to the district or school and parents get a type of dedicated use debit card and funds are disbursed quarterly. so it is somehow someone embezzled tens of millions of dollars.

the accounts were frozen and they werthat they were being hed accountable to pay the money back. i would say they are my favorites because they are the last parents to choose not just where their children are educated how they are educated and what we are seeing in arizona the first state to have it in 201 2011 and we successivy expanded programs. it's that parents are not just paying for private tuition but also getting a tutor and also taking practice tests so we are also getting ready for college. i think it is a wonderful program that leads to that sort of individualization and education children need which is a stark contrast to the trends we are seeing now in this one-size-fits-all. i especially like is that any money left over becomes a college savings account so that

helps people pay for college in a responsible way. so if you see success in one state it's a lot harder for the neighboring states to say the sky is going to fall so it's nice to be able to share the experiences and learn from each other and then you can customize it rather than having it come from the top down. we have the voucher programs pretty robust just that the higher education level. so we very rarely hear someone say i don't know. why is it that we have this disconnect between how we finance higher education where it is something that is portable for the most part and guess there's institutional funding but as a student you can go where you want and why is there a disconnect between how we finance higher education and k-12 and even as we are seeing

the state you mentioned florida as a good example that went through some sort of a public pre- k. that moves the options and ends up taking the form of a voucher model, so why that disconnect? >> that's a great question and inconsistency. i love pointing out on any given day in congress you could have a member of congress justify that we need more money for pills and then go to another committee and say this is terrible. the dc voucher program is terrible. i think it has to do with the politics and history, higher education really had such a flourishing landscape. so many private institutions of higher education and there was a natural development. so there really wasn't any sort of political interest group around that.

fast forward to k-12 and now we are trying to creep into the pre- k.. i think the politics of it, there has to be as opposed to this very diverse educational landscape the common school model that started in massachusetts we have to imprint that throughout the country and those of us in the western states in the constitution of joining the union we had to have common schools and they have to be this, that and the other so i think you have that diversity on the one hand and the one-size-fits-all on the other and it's been the challenge, the different histories in that regard. yes, sir? >> you talked about the duration of some of the legislative programs. not being a legislator i don't know the experience do all the

programs have a legislative end to them as it usually three years or five years or one-year? >> that is a great question as i go through chapter ten, i go through and give you a blow-by-blow on all the programs. they generally run if you are talking for example on a pell grant for one year if you are talking about some of these multi-year research program improvement grants, they can run anywhere from two to five years. so it does depend on the program and how it's appropriated and so forth. so there's a huge amount, there is some variance but it's not -- there is no reason why the states couldn't take over the management of the programs that help disadvantaged students. there is no reason to states couldn't do it and the chapter ten outlines those in pretty exact detail.

>> one more question and then i will come to you. so, you mentioned the states could take over something like special education funding. can you explain a little bit of the funding discrepancy, the funding share. you have the federal government that despite all of the spending increases we have seen over the past half century still represents a small share of overall the $600 billion that we spend. so does that factor into how would you think about how we restore state and local control in the share? >> that is a great question. you would think for all of the mandates and all of the regulatory guidance that we would be getting at least a third or more. the association did want a third of our funding to the federal funding. in reality it is 10% or less in any given year.

but our school did become so dependent on that 10%. we really have become addicted to our own money. it's only 10% and something to keep in mind as we see these heavy-handed mandates. all these rules and guidance and flexibility. i was hoping beyond hope that's the latest reiteration of the elementary and secondary education act of 65. i really wanted to believe we were going to get the flexibility and i wanted to believe secretary king was going to a ask these have followed the letter of the law and then we got that letter so keep in mind when we get things like this as fast they are contributing 10 cents of every dollar we spend

here. and that's 10 cents it's not a pure 10 cents. we will probably spend a quarter trying to pay for the mandates and red tape that comes along with it. >> beast obased on my research d current experience in k-12 education, i am really surprised at the amount of other federal involvement there is in the k-12 educational level. for example, the department of agriculture, health and human services, and one of the things that resonate with me as k-12 education isn't just about educating or helping students learn, it's about being the parent, the social worker etc.. can you talk a little about that please? >> absolutely. when we see these things especially what's going on in schools we think isn't that

great? one-stop shopping for raising children. it was never supposed to be that way. way. you are setting yourself up for failure. a lot of those models and historically the progressives back in the 18 hundreds font this is a great thing it's so exciting. that constitution, that guarantee for republican form of government we can't just impose this school system and the expressed purpose of this type of compulsory government run school system is to make good subjects. very compliant, go for long, provide social services, so everybody is taking care of everybody's kept content. although it does sound like a good idea conceptually. what we are seeing in reality is most families do not need to be

assigned a social worker. most families do not need to be told what to pack in their children's lunches. you look at the school lunches. i have four school-age stepsons in public schools and all of the lunches are terrible. even worse than your cooking. if the state coming in and taking over and there is a

pattern we see so frequently and we need to have this group of people. it degenerates into a universal mandate. one-size-fits-all. i think education is the most

soviet side in the united stat states. we don't go anywhere with that anymore. but the speed to can you maybe elaborate because that idea that you can choose any even for home schooling expenses. >> absolutely it's so wonderful. the education savings account program is far better than arizona. it's universal. basically if you are eligible to

attend a public school in nevada you are eligible for an education savings account. it's being challenged in court but it looks like there will be some very positive results and n the programs will continue. that is how we should be doing it. in fact i would say they shouldn't just be used for people who don't prefer a public district or charter school. i would say if you are a citizen in the state you get an esa, that's it. in the ideal world i would like to see is families stay for their own education. you have your own education savings account and i don't care what type of school. public and private, those are things that should ultimately go away. we should focus less where children are going to school.

so go to the education savings accounts levels and just like college or you go to college and go to school and let's face it if you're not happy with the results, take your child elsewhere because even with families you give examples of the public school personal note for one child, the online school, but private school privu need all those options. i would say nevada is absolutely the way to follow it and we could even combine it with the existing tax scholarship programs. i think the direction we need to be moving as we have to take back the ownership of the children's education. it's not somebody else's responsibility to pay. we need to take it over. one thing that frankly makes my blood whale is somehow the government isn't funding enough and the government isn't

involved in children won't get an education. the united states othese uniteda consistently every time it's rained the most charitable people on the face of the earth in terms of time, talent and treasure is a, what we donate i have a very hard time be leaving that when there is a need and a child couldn't afford to go to school that the community would rally, whether civic groups, faith-based groups, what have you so before we had the government involvement i agree with you. thank you so much for bringing us nevada. i will get to see how it's working firsthand. that is the direction that we should be going. other states should follow. >> do we have time for one more? >> really quickly turning it back as the legislation was written in such a way to give broad discretion to the secretary to kind of fill in the blanks of the legislation could

you highlight some of the shortcomings of that approach what are some of the consequences that may come up for parents and children alike? >> absolutely. finally, we have a reauthorization in place with all of this uncertainty. what it really boils down to is the one thing you read through these pages after pages to talk about flexibility and the fact that we in the state have to have our education plans approved here in dc by the secretary of education who let's face it, these folks are not friendly to the true education reform. that letter proved they are not friendly to parents. so i think my biggest warning, my biggest advice would be any

phrase that says a state plan hastate planhas to be reviewed o go. >> please join me in thanking vicki. [applause]

remember kennedy was assassinated in late november of 63, and i was at that time the president of the illinois federation of women and i had a series of speeches scheduled and beginning in december and it just seemed an appropriate to give the standard anti-democratic party speech. so, i had a new speech called how speeches are still in startinor stolen startingthe fif 1963. then i gave that speech all january and february and it told the story of how the rockefeller establishment outmaneuvered the conservatives and given the

nomination. by march i realized it implements the convention, so it was a whirlwind. >> when did you write it? >> i wrote it on my royal standard typewriter at night at home, and then of course i self published it. if you go to a publisher for it will take two years to get their act together, and we needed it. the little publisher that i set up to produce this book. so i sent it off to the printer in march, and 25,000 copies arrived at my garage and i typed out a one-page letter that said please read this book today and buy enough copies to send giordano gets to the 1964 republican national convention.

i typed it up and had a machine in the basement and i put the stencil on the round thing and had 100 letters out, the only advertising i ever did. and one of those letters was read by a friend in california who called up and said i'd read it and i'm going to a convention with the united republicans of california come air flights the 5,000 copies. so i loaded them up in my station wagon, took them to the airport, send them out and that weekend we had statewide distribution in california and the california primary was the first week in june and weaseled over a half a million copies between the first of may and the first of june. >> where did the title come from?

>> barry goldwater used the title and the minute i heard it i knew that was it. >> watch this and other programs that feature phyllis schlafly is booktv.org. good morning, everyone. thank you, students, staff and supporters for attending the young america's foundation national conservative student conference. i will be transferring from the university of utah after having spent two years at the university of miami. i had the privilege of interning with the foundation this summer and we are honored to start the day with one of the most notable activists in the movement. the foundation is dedicated to conservative outreach striving to inspire america's youth to uphold the conservative ideals about this country. we use programs like this conference to promote the ideas of individual freedom, free enterprise, the strong national defense and traditional values to young people across the country.