thinking of as ron was asking you to imagine some of the challenges is the fact that this executive action does not do a lot of things. one of the things it doesn't do is provide eligibility for health care, for example, for people who are eligible overall. when you have people who are still going without health insurance, that becomes more of a challenge and an issue for your communities. i'm wondering what the possible ways of addressing that might be and whether that does, indeed, pose a challenge in terms of resources. >> again, i think the answer to that, unfortunately, does not lie in cities. we just don't have the authority

or the power to solve the problem. we just have the responsibility to deal with the problem. and that's the tough part. in a city like aurora, we've got three major hospitals we've got another one coming on line shortly -- i hope -- it's a va hospital, you never know. but we'll find ways through the nonprofit community, through the faith-based community through our own programs that we can put in place and mental health area, to try to get services to people. but we can't change the law that says you're going to get health insurance. we can't do that part. we can just deal with what's on the ground. >> and i wasn't suggesting a change to the law, i guess it was more as an interim measure. how do you provide health care you know, to thousands of people who are eligible for health

insurance? >> i would just say we're doing that now. if someone shows up in an emergency room, they get treated. and it's a very expensive way to provide health care. and so to us and i'm speaking regionally now, not just at salt lake city, if we can find a way to better manage our health care costs and provide better health care, we're all better off as a community and as a society. so to me, in a way, with this executive order, it may not change health care, but it's not that we're not providing health care today, it's just a very expensive way we're providing it in some instances and if we can find a better way to do it we should. >> california is exploring it has discussed a change in the law. what do you think about the idea of making undocumented eligible for the state medicaid program? >> i think it's very reasonable. as people are being treated already, of course and it seems

like -- i think it would be reasonable. >> do you worry -- would that be seen as a bridge too far politically, that there might be a backlash even in california on it, or not? >> probably somewhat. but i think people in california are -- they understand that there is a problem that needs to be solved. it might not be the way everyone wants to solve it, but obviously people need to have health care, medical care. they're getting it already somehow. the hospitals are treating everybody who comes, as they should. so this provides some sort of framework for them. >> did you have maybe one more or did you want to bring in the audience? let's bring in the audience for questions. two microphones, one on each side. >> i didn't introduce myself earlier, but i'm brian caroman. i run two newspapers here in montgomery county and prince georges county maryland. we deal with this every day.

i guess mayor said they were a friend of the brief. if not, why not? >> salt lake city signed on just today. >> that action is something that very candidly i had not heard anything about until today, so that's something i'll have to go back and talk with my city council about. >> our city most likely will not be. the council had voted not to support the action before it happened. again, i think it's -- there needs to be a law passed, and i don't know if this actually helps us get closer to that or not. >> over here. >> thank you all for being here. i'm not sure if any of the mayors are republicans, but my question is, for you or for your republican colleagues, fellow mayors is it more difficult to take an outreach view to new

americans because of pressure from the national republican party? >> i'm a republican and the answer is no. i mean, i've been out front in the community and politically in terms of statements to the press, appearing at meetings. i've had numerous other republicans in colorado along with me. not alone, and there is no pressure no. >> i'm also republican. i felt no pressure. i chaired the immigration task force for the u.s. conference of mayors trying to get comprehensive immigration reform. no one has ever called me on that or objected. >> can i broaden the question with a similar kind of theme for our two republican mayor colleagues? on the other hand --

>> by the way, i am opposed to that. >> the reality is that in today's politics most urban areas do lean democratic. most mayors are democratic, most republicans in the house represent places that are less dense, less urbanized, and in many ways less likely to be dealing directly with the on-the-ground effects of this demographic change and in particular, the immigration issue. leaving aside the question of pressure on you not to be where you are do you find in the republican party less sensitivity to -- less urgency about solving the problem because many of the people in office are simply representing communities that are less affected by it? >> i think a lot of it has to do -- there's two issues. one is a path to citizenship the nationalization, the other is the border. it's probably republican party maybe focused on the border first. the fact is they both have to

happen. otherwise the problem will continue and continue until the borders are somewhat unsecure. so i think it's a level of focus. i found my republican colleagues, so many agree with me. they know people who come to this country who want a better life to work. why would we not want those people to be part of this country? >> i think to a certain extent, it also depends on where you're talking about. for example, in aurora, eight of the 11 city council people are republicans. but if you turn it around 12 of the 14 state representatives and state senators are democrats. and that's the same city. we had a congressman who engaged his opponent in a debate this last election entirely in

spanish. so it's not as unusual perhaps in colorado as -- >> he was one of the few who voted against -- mike coffman you're referring to. in aurora a majority of house republicans did vote to not only block the new executive order but to overturn doca as well and he voted the other way. only 26 voted not to overturn doca, i think, was the number. i'm just wondering, that experience that he is representing is very different than most of his colleagues. even in colorado you think about republicans at the federal level, more rural areas dominant there. do you find kind of a gap in discussion perception about what this issue is? >> i think there probably is a gap, but again i don't have time to worry about it. i'm busy trying to deal with what's going on on a daily basis on the ground. and i'm going to do what i think is right for my city, and the

residents of my city, and i'll worry about the niceties of the political philosophy later. >> you're in the opposite situation. you're kind of the island in a very different statewide politics. >> beautiful island. >> talk about the difference between your community where some of this is more immediate and perhaps other places where it's more a matter of belief, principal, idealogy? >> i think it's what we've been talking about as mayors. we serve everyone in our community making people feel protected, making people want to participate in our community in a lot of ways and have equal opportunity. and that is a very different dynamic than the idealogical discussions we see going on in this city, and i walk out of meetings with members of my congressional delegation who i really enjoy personally and know, and i kind of shake my head. it's like, that's not the world i'm living in.

and i have to respect them. they're elected like i am. but it's like are you representing the same constituents sometimes. washington seems like a very far-off place when these kinds of discussions go on compared to the everyday world we live in in cities. >> the question we asked mayor garcia before let's assume the arguments carry and it is not blocked in litigation, congress is not going to be able to block it. if it does go forward mayor tait said he thought it did not move us closer to a legislative solution, but if, in fact, several million people are granted some kind of legal status between now and the end of his presidency, do you think that brings us closer or further away to a legislative solution during the obama legislation. or even during it. >> i did have an ability to act,

but i do think it moves us closer to bringing more people into the full ability to be part of our community. and if we get half of the problem solved, and if it rolls over into the next congress maybe the next congress will take it up. but in the meantime, hopefully we'll have more people in our community who are paying more taxes and contributing more economically and having more opportunity through school and through the normal parts of our society. >> if all those things happened, more opportunity, paying more taxes, participating in school owning homes, do you think it is practical to take it away at a later date? do you think that could happen or not? >> no it's not practical to take it away. again, whatever happens happens, and mayors are pretty prgagmatic. we deal with it, and we will deal with it, and we'll find a way no matter what to make our individual communities better.

>> amy, do you want to -- >> yeah. i guess i'm curious talking about members of your state's delegations who may or may not understand the pressures that you're under what you would ask them for in terms of import? what can they do to help you with this? >> i would -- congress needs to get together and pass immigration reform some sort of comprehensive reform. this needs to be solved by a law that you get the entire country behind. you don't have to have this worry of being overturned in courts down the road years from now in litigation. this uncertainty of the current situation, people in anaheim a big issue in our city is trust. and we want to build a trust with our police department, with our city. if there is a question of whether they will be able to stay here or even with this executive action, it's hard to

build up a trust. we're the ones that have to deal with this. >> so when you do those conversations that leave you scratching your head a little bit, what are you asking? what could washington do to make this easier for you short of comprehensive? >> i don't know short of comprehensive reform what they can do. this is not, you know, picking up pieces. obviously president obama has chosen that course and we can agree or disagree with it, but he's not saying, as the rest of us aren't saying we don't need a comprehensive solution. if you pick out different pieces of it whether it's just border security or whether it's dealing with health care, dealing with the dreamers you're still leaving a big segment of our population that's living in our communities today unaddressed in terms of their status and in terms of their contributions to our community, and their feeling of being part of our community. i think for all of us in cities, we want the residents to feel

like they're in a secure place. >> all right. oh we have a question over here. >> quick question. i've been a school principal for many, many years and what we've done when other students are coming from other places with other languages, they would help our kids to learn those languages while our kids in english would help them to learn english, and that's been -- in our -- i've been a principal in three or four different places, and it seems to work. and, you know they're learning english and we're learning spanish or chinese or whatever. >> and that happens all the time in aurora. our five school districts have students from over 130 different countries who speak almost 140 different languages at home.

that's just -- that's life. and so i mean, i was at a class of kindergarten students about two weeks ago who were learning chinese, mandarin. and they were responding to the teacher in mandarin. and the teacher was a volunteer. so we've got that kind of community. >> it's all free too, right? >> it's free. darn right. that earlier question if i wanted to ask for something, i want more resources with fewer strings. i can sure find a good way to put it to use. and it will help the entire community, not just part of the community, the entire community. >> this point about language, because of the missionary

tradition, you're talking about a large community who is fluent in language. i'm wondering how that sbeintegrate integrates the community. >> we have an olympic base that we see around the world. like aurora, we've got over 100 languages spoken in our schools, we've got dual emergent programs, we've got a continuous cross-fertization that cross- cross-fertilization in our community. the dynamics change because of changing additional cultures in our community, and yet it's reflective and we are not adapting as quickly to our educational system both taking full advantage of all these cultures in our community, but we also aren't providing the resources for kids who may be a refugee who doesn't even know how to flush the toilet much less going into a new school

with a new language and new culture. >> and i'm guessing aurora and anaheim, the majority of the public school system are kids of color in all likelihood. what would surprise people, i know it's true in salt lake city as well. >> it is. >> and that must be something for even people in salt lake city to wrap their heads around. >> certainly at the state level. i think in salt lake city we're so accustomed to it and enjoy it that in salt lake city there's not an issue. at the state level there is a pretty big gap. especially when you look at a state legislature that is predominantly male, mormon and elderly speaking to the population, so they are a generation apart of what's happening in salt lake city increasingly across the state. >> he asked two questions so i was going to ask two questions too. my question is what do you feel an appropriate time is for the pathway to citizenship? i'd like to hear each of your

individual responses. and i ask this because i lived and worked in oklahoma for a while and had some friends in the legal system there and had clients who would be in the system for 10 to 15 years before they were granted citizenship, and it was an issue a lot of times on the end of administration paperwork being lost sometimes names changed, they would have four different last names. a lot of paperwork problems, not necessarily were they qualified or sincere and ernest in that process. i'm curious from each of you, what do you feel is an appropriate amount of time for that pathway to citizenship? >> do you take a position in the letter how long? >> we didn't address that in the letter and -- i don't have a strong opinion on that other than there should be one. and i guess you can debate whether they should wait behind everyone else who has applied legally or not. i just, from a city point of

view, people need a path to citizenship. it's not good to have two classes of people, ever. so whether it's -- it should be -- it certainly shouldn't be forever, let's put it that way. >> the sooner the better. >> i don't know a specific time frame. i know that they come out with executive orders to suggest a time frame. certainly we need to go through a process whether their criminal background is checked where we know the condition and the ability of people to live within our society. but this is part of the federal broken immigration system. i know people today who are trying to work their way through the process, following all the legal channels, having every clear pathway and trying to become citizens, and it is a complete mess today. and some of it is just inefficiency of a bigger

government bigger agency. some of it is just kind of outdated mechanisms while everyone is in a standstill waiting for congress to do something. >> mayor? >> i'm not sure i can add anything to what was already said. i don't know what's the magic number. i do know it should not be any faster than someone who is going through the established legal processes. it shouldn't be any faster than that. but how much longer it should be, i don't know. >> we only have a couple minutes left, so let me ask maybe one final question going back to the schools a moment ago. you were all talking in a very positive way about kind of the enriching effect of having so many different cultures in the school and so many different languages. there are challenges as well having that many languages spoken at home. i was just wondering to what extent you feel that the schools at this point, particularly the places that haven't historically dealt with a lot of adversity, our capability of dealing with

this enormous kaleiscopic change across the country. >> i would just say there is a huge desire and commitment but it is a change in resources. when you have a teacher who has 25 to 30 students in a classroom in elementary school and they're trying to provide for diverse circumstances, ask thennd then you add on the layers of culture and language and preparation coming into the school system it puts a really unfair burden on the teacher. the commitment is there the desire is there the resources aren't there. i don't want to cast a sort of blame, but, you know, we're struggling with that piece of it. i can tell you from salt lake city's side, for the very first time in the history of our city, we are starting to pour resources into the school system that otherwise would be coming to city government to try to help address the issues. >> all right. final thought? >> can i just put out a plug?

>> yeah. >> for something that we just ransom coverage of on next america, our sister project next economy, is a program here in d.c. it's a charter school that does two-generation education, and it was started a decade or two ago by local leaders in immigrant communities so that they could teach children and teach their parents at the same time. because so many immigrant parents are working jobs with off hours, they're actually able to come to school during school hours, and their number one concern about raising their children was the inability to be able to communicate with their child's teachers and to be part of that education, to be able to support them. and it has become a way to really kind of speed up the assimilation process but also tie them into the larger community. >> all right. with that thank you for joining me mayor hogan, mayor becker, and mayor tait. [applause] . >> and our next panel will take

the page. joanna? now we'll hear from former clinton housing and urban development secretary harold cisneros and president bush aguilar. they discussed immigration last year and the potential for immigration legislation out of the new republican congress. this is a little over 40 minutes. >> next is our panel immigration in the new year. ron brownstein is returning to stage. we have joining him henry cisneros who is the chairman of city view, former secretary of the u.s. department of housing and urban affairs and co-chair of the bipartisan policy centers immigration task force. and alfonso aguilar, who is the executive director of the latino partnership at the american principals project.

sadly our republican strategist, oliver navarro was not able to join us. >> i'm very sad our colleague was not able to join us and the only thing silencing navarro is being sick. that's a very rare event. but we have a lot of fire power here to help us consider these issues. and we've been talking to mayors and other experts really kind of on the ground about what this will mean in communities and how it would be implemented and what some of the legal issues are. i want to start at least on a broader dimension about the president's choice to move forward with executive action. was it the right thing for him to do mr. secretary? >> i think it was the only thing he could do. i have been close to the process through the bipartisan policy center of watching the various opportunities that the congress had, particularly the republican house, beginning with this time last year when there was a moment, and then there was talk about after the primaries, then

there was talk about a window in the summer. and it just never came. and there was no indication that it would. so asking the administration, the president and the country to wait longer somehow, that something great would materialize in the next year was just not probable. i think he had very little choice. he did the right thing. >> well, look. i think it was in the right timing. i've criticized publicly republicans in the past congress for not acting constructively on immigration. they should have done something. however, you have a new congress. and for a person to say, well, republicans were not doing anything, there is no hope of anything happening then let's hunker back and just go back home. i think that it's a new congress. the person should have given republicans an opportunity. i think -- i think he could have waited a year see if by the end

of this year republicans will do something. if they have not done anything, perhaps he could move forward with executive action. but why not give -- his actions certainly antagonize the republicans, so now it's much more difficult -- i'm not saying impossible -- but much more difficult to making it happen. why not wait a year? >> when lots of people are suffering across the countries and this really touches people's lives just like doca did. i have personal experience with lives that have changed of students that literally if they had taken a wrong right turn in their cars, their taillight was out, they could be arrested and deported. this impacts real people. secondly, the president has said he was going to act so he needed to. and then finally, i would say in terms of the damage done to the process, i think the president threaded the needle almost perfectly. this is probably untouchable

from a legal standpoint, so it's not going to be derailed that way. and at some point the republicans, with all due respect, and i have great respect for many of the republican leaders and members they're just going to have to get over all of these objections they keep throwing up and do something that's in their own interest to do it. >> let's come back to the legal. on the legislative side either side, is there any way that you can see for this congress to stop him from doing this? >> no. they're going to try to do it because the idea of somehow through the hs not letting the press use funding for this executive action. the truth is that the agency called to implement the executive action of dual citizenship and immigration, it's a fee-based agency. they have the money to implement it. even if the house passed the vhs

budget, there is a way with executive actions. i don't know if the senate is going to include that in their bill. but let's say it does pass the senate, i think the congress would veto it. so the option they have is now you have 25 states that have sued over executive action saying it's unconstitutional. perhaps the congress could get involved saying it's administration of powers saying the principal doesn't have the discretion to do something like that. i've reviewed the federal case law and recent supreme court decisions and the supreme court has recognized that a person has -- not the president, the law enforcement agencies have ample discretion to determine how to prosecute a case, what charges to file. so in the end that is not based on presidential authority but on the percentsecutorial authority they

have. this is going to happen. >> there is a hope that all of this will sort of pass with time. the republicans will suddenly see, this doesn't make any sense, and then leaders like g.f. ballard who was here this morning and others who are form forming the various caucuses and groups will do something. it will start with border security and move to other things, but in due course this is too big an issue. >> it's due course before 2016 or after 2016? >> i think you'll see action in 2016. that's a long time. >> i'm hoping it will be 2015. '16 will be almost impossible for the person with the national election cycle on its way. i think the president has self-interest. i think the majority of conservatives, republicans know that it's very difficult for them to win the white house if

they don't do better with this. immigration is not that important for latinos, but it's certainly an important issue. it's a gateway issue. if you don't address that issue, it's very difficult to get their support even if they agree with you on the other issues. to become competitive, you're going to have to address immigration. >> i'm not sure that something couldn't happen in '16. i know it's hard in a presidential year. we all know the logic of the way the presidential year plays out. but it depends on who the nominee is and who is leading and what the nominee wants to accomplish and maybe get this off the table. i think there is some possibility. >> let's talk about the women. i want to ask you, though, about the impact -- you said that in the end whether through congress or the courts the opponents are, in all likelihood, not going to be able to stop this and this is going to start happening at some point before the 2016 election? >> well, executive action as it is right now would start at, as the

administrative order says, would start in may of this year. >> and if people actually start signing up and this does start going into effect how does that change the calculus in congress? does that make it more or less likely that something could happen either before or after 2016, for that matter? >> i think it makes it less -- more likely that the congress will do something, because, for example, at some point reasonable republicans are going to recognize you don't do things like try to undo doca, which is already two years in implementation, touching lives and then to include that as something you want to reverse, it's just almost suicidal as a long-term political strategy. >> i agree politically. the message that the latino community is receiving right now is frankly one of pettiness. because i understand the frustration. i understand they want to go to the courts, and they want to undo the executive actions, but at the same time, they would be

proposing legislation, something constructive, then it would be understandable. but they're not doing that. they're just saying let's undo the executive actions. so the message right now is one of pettiness. when are they going to propose something that addresses not only border security but also the undocumented. and that's the problem. and i think time is running out. i really do think this next six months are key. however, on the positive side we've heard mitch mcconnell, senate republican leader say that he believes that something should be done on a piecemeal basis. congressman labrador said he will introduce a guest worker bill. congressman sanders the other day from louisiana said we should do a work program which was approved by the bipartisan commission. so i think they want to do something, but they can't wait. at one point they have to introduce something. >> you have said to me i think, in a conversation we had a few months ago that you thought it was a mistake for the president

to do the executive action, but if the republicans simply ran on repeeling re repealing the executive action in 2016, they would not be able to win the election. >> i really believe that. today if you look at the electoral map, you have to win florida. republicans are not competitive right now in states like colorado, nevada, new mexico. we have to change that around, and the only way to do it is to really address this issue and finally be able to effectively engage the latino community. i'm not saying that by working on the immigration issue constructively that all of a sudden things are going republican. they still have to do their work to win over latinos. but i think republicans do become competitive with latino voters if they address immigration. >> i think it's too easy to say the presidential election hinges on this issue. i don't know that that's the case. i think obviously republicans have a long way to go in terms of winning over a decent

percentage of the latino vote. and it does matter in key states. >> do you think the republican nominee in 2016 will pledge to repeal the executive action? >> i don't because i don't know who the nominee is going to be but if it's jeb bush, he will not do that. >> do you think he's possibly nominated in 2016 without repealing the executive action? >> he's criticized the executive action. >> he's criticized it but most americans don't like the way the president proceeded, but at the same time they want to see immigration reform. >> it may be pollyannish, but i think the sharpness of this is going to wear down both in the congress and the country at large, and what happens sometimes in american politics, reasonable people come around and realize they have to take some concrete actions. let me just say there is a bigger backdrop here which is we're watching countries all over the world struggle with immigration issues. we have done it basically right over all this time.

we ought to be doubling down and figure out the things we've done right and do more of those, including the circumstances that we see in europe today where disaffected immigrants left on the sidelines. you just can't do that as policy for the long haul. even greater implications in places like japan and spain where the countries are actually going to decline in population because they have no immigrant strategy. so immigration is absolutely a national security and national prosperity issue for the future, and the republicans, i just have to believe, will see that. >> i want to say something to caution, because i think sometimes we file this narrative that the problem is just republicans, democrats really want to get this done. i think that's a little bit simplistic as well. i think somebody that has worked within this community, i think they see that both parties have played politics with this issue.

certainly republicans have -- the past congress have not led. a lot of republicans have said things very unfortunate and offensive to hispanics, but at the end, let's remember that the president did have a democratic congress the first two years of administration. he chose not to do anything. even if republicans want to get something done in this congress in house and senate they will meet the support of democrats. let's take a guest worker program. union workers don't like to see a guest worker program. if we legalize the undocumented that's only dealing with a symptom of the problem. that's not solving the problem. the problem we have is that our economy needs foreign workers because our population is not going fast enough. >> but ultimately, in 2013, every senate democrat did vote for the legislation, right? >> yes, but the guest worker program was very limited. in fact, someone like rand paul who leads a larger guest worker

program, the one reason he voted against it was -- >> with all due respect, i really feel like while this ought not be about politics, the president really cleaned himself and the democratic party with the executive action. it wasn't about that. i believe he did it for the right reasons. but the perception is vast today. if you were to poll how the latinos feel, democratic versus republican, this is a major problem. >> let's put this in perspective. i think the executive actions have been overplayed as well. i mean, it helped how many people? it's an estimate of 5 million people. how many undocumented people do we have? about 11 million. this is putting up risk. getting legal status for all of them it excludes 6 million people. even the people that would benefit under the executive action again don't have legal status. to go to their home country, they would have to get some sort of vast parole every time they

leave the country. >> you're absolutely correct that this didn't solve the entire problem. we know that we need comprehensive immigration reform. having served on the bipartisan policy center we had a bipartisan consensus that kept repeating through the worst of times that we prefer legislative action and prefer a comprehensive solution, but it just wasn't coming. >> giving full vent to my shallow political side, we talked a lot about latino voters, but they're not the only voters. and i'm just wondering if you worry at all about taking this into 2016 for a democratic presidential candidate to defend executive action to provide legal status? >> if you polled today i haven't seen the polls last week -- >> today the wall street journal had them slightly in majority in favor. >> in favor of -- >> legal action at this time. >> there's even stronger

majority in favor of legalizing immigrants, bringing comprehensive reform and this could be a step in the right direction when congress holds back. i don't think it's anything any democratic candidate should be fearful of. >> do you think they'll have to worry about defending the president acting alone on this is this do you think that would be a problem in 2016? >> i don't think so. i think this benefits democrats. that's why i recommend republicans. again, i understand the frustration. this is a complex issue that should be resolved legislatively. that's why i support the unilateral action. i think the president should have waited. but it's time for them to leave. going back to my earlier point, say the republicans proposed a legal status without a special path to citizenship. democrats go along. if the republicans introduce a more market-based guest worker program, so it's not big government determining how many

foreign workers center the country, will democrats go along or will they torpedo those efforts? democrats have to be very careful, because if they end up killing immigration reform because the package is not to their liking, latinos would have a problem. >> we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. when republicans are offered concrete things that make sense border security issues, legalization questions special industries, tech agriculture et cetera, and then the issue of a path to citizenship which, of course, was in the senate legislation, rigorous, long-term, 13-year path, who would have imagined the democrats would have accepted that, but i think the democrats would have in certain circumstances. under these circumstances, there will be other decisions that have to be made but you will see democrats getting around to supporting what's available. >> there is a bit of an angle there, because i think if you look again at the senate bill

that bill was not comprehensive. look at the guest worker program going to the root of the problem. in the initial five years, every year it would only provide 20,000 work visas per year for our economy. 20,000 work visas per year. that's ridiculous. after five years, the cap would be 200,000. it's just not big enough. and that is the root of the problem. if you don't have enough work visas so people -- this is not a problem of illegality, this is a problem of flows. the problem with the reform in the '80s, we legalized some people, but we didn't have the mechanism to allow for the illegal flows that were needed. what happened? they kept coming in and now we have the problem of 11 million undocumented immigrants. and the other thing is i don't think you can say -- look, i think it's a caricature to say

the party, the republican delegation in congress is controlled by, on immigration, or they agree with ted cruz on majority. i think the majority of republicans want to do something. they need to get courage, they need to act, but it's not a problem of substance, of policy that they disagree with immigration reform. >> let me just quickly say if the suggestion is there is somehow union and other impediment impediments on the democratic side, i don't see them. i think comprehensive reform in phases, in pieces would pass in that legislation. on the republican side, i don't think anybody is suggesting that ted cruz alone or steve king is the arbiter of what republicans can do. but the process they've set up has given them a lot of power saying there has to be a majority within the caucus.

>> is it naive, though, to think there are no obstacles, even some serious obstacles in the liberal democratic side? we make it sound like all democrats are for comprehensive immigration reform. >> they're not going to do crazy things like keeping people from getting a path to citizenship, but reasonable, middle ground solutions, i think there is a vast majority of democrats for it. >> obviously, the way to put that to a test would have been to try to pass a bill through the house that democrats in the house would have had to deal with and presumably a conference committee would have had to deal with. why can't republicans get to that point of testing the democratic sincerity bypassing passing their own bill? >> this isn't the first time i say this i think the republicans lack courage. seven or eight years ago when president bush was trying to push immigration reform, i was involved in that process, i was at the hs as chief of citizenship. i saw a lot of republicans

perhaps the majority, that had substantive problems with immigration reform, with legalizing the undocumented. i don't see that now. i think the problem right now is that many are afraid of being primaries, many are afraid of having their credentials be questioned and they're boxed in, and this folds alternatives. you're either for obama's amnesty or you're for enforcing the rule of law. well, there is a middle there and there is a third alternative that is not supporting obama's proposal like the senate did, and their alternative is a conservative alternative that is a market-based program a path to legal status that doesn't provide a special path to citizenship and supporting the border worker as well. but they should feel confident as conservatives they can address the issue but it requires courage. >> i don't know that the problem is a failure of courage. i think it is a failure of a vision of the future of the

country, a misunderstanding of what the composition of the country is today and the -- and failure of appreciation of what people who look different and have different last names and different accents can contribute to the future of the country. they just don't understand it. >> i have to disagree with that wholeheartedly. that is not the problem. to think that it's just -- >> but for steve king. >> i agree with that, and i've been very critical of steve king, i've been very critical of ted cruz who is hispanic, i guess, but they don't represent the majority of the party. i think they understand the demographics. i think it's a question of courage. and it's going to happen eventually. it's going to happen. but just to say that they're just afraid of people who are different, i mean -- >> let me ask one last thing before we bring in the audience for a couple questions and i have a couple saved for the end.

don't both of you think in the end the legal and federal challenges will fail, and this will begin to happen. at some point probably in 2015 -- >> i think the president failed to deal with the legal issues and the political issues. >> how do the political and legislative environment change if people, in fact, start signing up in large numbers? does that make it easier to ultimately get the comprehensive reform? does that change the issue that plays out in 2016? >> it makes it easier to get to comprehensive reform i do, because the republicans will see all of those retrograde hedge warfare tactics failed, and now they're faced with the fundamental reality that they're on the wrong side of history. >> if two or four million people actually sign up for this what happens? >> i don't think it will hinge on that. i think once republicans see in the next couple months say by the beginning of march that legislatively they're not able to undo executive action, that

they're not going to prevail in the courts, i think they're going to start moving ahead with regular order and start introducing legislation. and then i think the dynamic changes. and then we'll see how willing our democrats are to embrace a visionary policy on immigration. because, again, we've had a market-based guest worker program. i don't see how we actually are being supportive of immigration to help bring in the foreign workers that our economy needs to grow the economy for america. >> if they're not able to pass legislation or if they do pass legislation and can't reach agreement with the president for a republican that comes in in 2016 do they redo the executive order without legislation in place? >> i think the republicans pass immigration reform that includes legalization and the press then vetoes it, then the tables are turned. and i think a republican candidate would say, if i were

president, i would sign that bill into law. you know, this is a very complex issue, and i think it's very vol volatile and things can change. right now we're in a position yes, republicans look terribly with latino voters but things can really change once we get into a policy discussion. i wouldn't underestimate the policy differences over a guest worker program, and unions -- >> almost any scenario you can envision, there would be no need to cancel the executive orders because any action that you could see that republicans could reasonably take would incorporate those things at the outset is my sense. so i don't think that's going to be the turning point. >> all right, let's bring in the audience. >> henry it's good to see you. always a pleasure. but let's be real. let's keep it real for a couple things. don't you think that pressure from the cities -- i mean we

heard mayors here, republican and democrat, saying that we have to deal with this situation now. don't you think the pressure from the cities is going to pressure congress into moving in 2015 or 2016? and again, keeping it real, henry, you've been -- you were the mayor of san antonio, you can't close the border. anybody isn't preaching border security, high wind in the tree it's not reality not that i've seen. if people want to get over here they find a way to do it. >> the cities play a part because they are more diverse as you pointed out in the last panel. they are more diverse and there's some pressure for dealing with the reality of integration, and the facts that have to be addressed on the ground. i don't think it will be pressure from any one particular thing. it's the cumulative effect of the tech industry and the agricultural industry, and the cities as you say, and immigrant activists, and law enforcement

and evangelicals and the churches, and so i think it's a bigger macro kind of pressure that's going to finally say this is ridiculous, let's get this done. >> well just something very briefly in terms of border security you're absolutely right. we'll never be able to close up the border. can we improve border security? dramatically, yes. we did it with strategic fencing in california and in arizona. the area that is really out of control right now, and it is out of control is the rio grande valley. we need strategic fencing there. are we still going to have people coming in illegally because we have a demand for poor workers? absolutely. that's why a guest worker program is so important to border security. we want to have strategic fences, we want to have more assets on the border. we want to make sure good people who want to come here to work can find a work visa come here legally, go back to their home country and then re-enter legally. now, so i think that's key to border security. now, one last point so far

we've had local governments evangelical churches the chamber of commerce, very involved. i think also the dynamic has to change a little bit. it can't be only immigration advocates and the industry lobbying congress. i think we need more conservative voices, who support immigration reform. who have no ties with business, lobbying republicans. i think conservative republicans, even tea party alliance conservatives are not going to listen to the chamber of commerce. they need political cover from conservatives. and there are many conservatives who are supportive of immigration reform. but they also need to have courage to provide the political cover for the more conservative members to be able to support immigration reform in congress. >> you know, you were talking about the 2017 scenario. i guess you were saying that if there is a republican president they would not feel the need to repeal the order because most that would pass in a comprehensive measure would be

included. >> but i guess it seems to be entirely plausible scenario would be that we continue to have stalemate within the republican party possible but not able to pass anything and the nominee has to pledge to repeal the order and say yeah, i'll try to do something legislatively. >> i'm kind of an aca kind of environment where they pledge to do something and then they get here and find out their limited options. >> right. it may -- >> and not even smart to do it. >> i mean it was a republican -- i mean the situation in '06 was not that different when bush was in office than when obama was in office in the sense the senate passed it with bipartisan support, over 60 votes and the house was simply unable to build a consensus to act, really in any direction. you know they just not want to deal with it. >> you could see a scenario that played out as you described. but in the final analysis, when they get in to figuring out what to repeal, i mean, there's real people out there real damage in the neighborhoods in the streets, in the communities i don't think they'll have the

stuff to do it. >> over here. >> yes, the bipartisan politics that the national chamber of commerce center for american progress, and even one major national conservative institute have highlighted the economic benefits, and the impact that immigration reform, and the executive action would create. could you talk about this? >> well the economic impacts are immense. everything from people unleashed to spend money that they earned. buy homes. alejandro is an expert on -- who just asked the question on home ownership, and knows that in that business the greatest percentage of household formations, and for home ownership are among immigrant populations. it's huge the effect that will be unleashed for the country. and that's part of why business is so strongly supportive.

>> i agree with that. but i think the argument that we're missing is an argument, an economic argument that connects with the average american. and look our economy is not doing well. i mean, the labor participation levels are very low. i mean, compared -- i mean they're compared to the years carter was in office. the jobs that are being created are not -- are part-time jobs. and it's easy to blame immigrants for that. what i think -- >> your good leadership as students, we as adults get it. thank you very much. if you would take your seat now, that would be fantastic so we can at least start with some introductory remarks, a prayer and the pledge as well. i am very excited to have everyone here with us this morning. what a lovely crowd, good-looking kids, smart, energetic, focused and a lot of

adults who are very committed and engage edd around school this. this morning as everyone is taking their seats i'm going to ask bobby little to come forward and lead us in a morning prayer and then we'll have once bobby is done we'll have jay yates lead us in the pledge. bobby? >> thank you very much. lieutenant colonel bobby little. >> well, good morning. let us pray. almighty god our father, the creator of heaven and earth and sustainer of life, we are grateful for your grace and mercy, and your love for each one of us. o lord our lord how excellent is your name in all the earth. we invoke your presence in this forum, in this great gathering where these men and women will discuss the freedom to choose academic excellence for every

child, and the issues of education for all parents, regardless of race, origin or family income are free to choose, a learning environment that is best for their children. and we know your value of children. jesus said let the little children come to me. and do not hinder them for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. therefore, grant each of these leaders vision insight, and inspiration, as well as plausible solutions as they work through each of these issues today. may their discussions be robust. their conversations enthusiastic and their speech gracious. season with salt that they may know how to respond to everyone. turn their eyes to wisdom, and apply their hearts to understanding. may you give them success as you guide their hearts and minds.

may they accomplish all that they pursue because they are choosing excellence. thank you for your presence, and for those who are gathered today. we pray your guidance today. amen. >> amen. >> thank you, bobby. jade? hey, jade, how are you? i'm doing well. will you come up here and lead us in the pledge, please? >> good morning, everybody. i'm jade yates ambassador jade yates from richard wright public charter school for journalism, media arts. will everybody please stand for the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

>> yeah, good morning. >> thank you very much, jade. you did a great job. i'm certainly very excited about the issue of school choice, and i look around the audience and i see so many fantastic young folks in the audience and i'll tell you that today is about you. the truth of the matter is that all the things that we will discuss today will be about making sure that the future is bright for you. i'm a big believer that if we are to succeed as a nation, it will happen because we empower the next generation. and i believe that school choice provides us an avenue to make sure that each and every student has an amazing future because you have the access to a quality education. now i'm a southern boy from south carolina. and when we say some things we like to hear amen.

>> amen. >> so, if you hear something that sounds good to you, you just say -- >> amen. >> and if you hear something you don't really understand, and you think i'm confused up here, that's a good time just to shout -- >> amen. >> see i brought with me my south carolina contingency because they understand how this works. so i have to get you young folks a little warmed up in here. anyway, go back to my prepared remarks. working the way through the south. i will tell you that while i'm incredibly excited about school choice and the opportunity to hear from some amazing panelists from congresswoman kathy mcmorris rodgers to my good friend from south carolina state to senator larry grimm to everyone in the country should know one of the leading voices of school choice and the governor of louisiana bobby

jindal. i am also reminded unfortunately, of some challenging circumstances. kathy mcmorris rodgers will have to leave a little early this morning in order to attend the funeral of allen nunnally a congressman who was elected from mississippi with me when i was first elected to congress. so you don't mind we'll have about a five-second moment of silence for mr. congressman nunnally's family. thank you. this conference is brought to you today not by senator tim scott. but truly by a concerted effort on behalf of a lot of people in this room and specifically my staff, and i'd like to give a shout-out to lizzie simmons, my -- [ applause ]

lizzie over here. lizzie is my l.a. for education issues. she's passionate about the issue of school choice. she's worked tirelessly to make sure that today is as successful as it can be and so i would love to once again acknowledge lizzie lizzie, and you see a lot of my staff around, who have put a lot of time in to making sure that today is as significant as possible. i'd also like to thank my partners the american federation of children, along with the friedman foundation for educational choice. both have been major contributors to the efforts to make sure that they happen. we're going to hear from amazing speakers beyond this panel. we're going to also have senator lamar alexander. we're going to have educators like steve perry from capital preparatory schools to grassroot energizers like rick hess at aei and dr. hartsock from phone to

action, as well. here's what i want you to walk away with. is an understanding that we understand that we believe that a child's education should not be determined. the quality of your education should not be determined by your zip code. that every child in every facet of this nation has the potential to be a lifelong learner. and to be a child of excellence. and so we want to make sure that we focus our attention on making sure that every single student everywhere in the nation no matter your zip code no matter your ethnic background no matter your family income has the opportunity to succeed, and if we do that, our future will be amazing. >> amen! >> thank you, brother.

i like that. the brethren over here to the left understands us. amen. there you go. let me make it crystal clear. we must act now on the issue of educational choice. this is not an issue that we could just say is a good issue. this is an issue that we have to fight for every single day to make sure that our actions lead to more kids having more access to the highest quality of education this nation has ever seen. and when that happens, and when that happens, all students will prosper. our nation will succeed. because we cannot separate the future success of this nation from your success.

thank you. thank you. thank you. we're going to go ahead and get started with the first panel, because the longer i speak the less they speak and we have some amazing peekers to hear from. if you'll join me as we start our first panel. [ applause ] moderated by american enterprise institute my good friend rick hess. >> good morning, everyone. thank you, senator. pleasure to be with you. as the senator said i'm rick hess, director of education policy studies at the american enterprise institute. it's a pleasure to be with you today. and i just want to thank and congratulate senator scott and the leadership he has brought to this issue and to challenging our nation to do better when it comes to educating our kids. to moderate this panel this morning, we've got some terrific folks for you, sitting next to

senator scott we've got governor bobby jindal. under governor jindal's leadership, louisiana has been transformed. he has cut red tape slimmed the size of government, reduced state employees by 34%, and pushed education reform to give every child the opportunity to get a great education. today, under governor jindal's leadership, louisiana has more people, more jobs, higher incomes, more imports, more exports and a higher gdp than at any time in its history. sitting next to the governor we've got state senator larry grooms. elected in 1997 represents south carolina's 37th district which encompasses parts of both berkeley and charleston counties. his work in the state senate entailed chairing the senate transportation committee and the joint transportation review committee. as well as serving on a number of other committees, including education. a tireless advocate for school choice in south carolina, he lives on daniel island with his wife carol and their three sons.

and our fourth member of the panel this morning is congresswoman cathy mcmorris rodgers. congresswoman mcmorris rodgers is chair of the house republican conference and the fourth highest ranking republican in the united states house of representatives. an advocate for military families, and the families of people with special needs, congresswoman mcmorris rodgers is co-chair of both the military family and the down's syndrome caucuses. congresswoman mcmorris rodgers is married to brian rodgers and the proud mother of three children. congresswoman, let me begin with you this morning. there's a lot of ways to think about educational improvement and how to help our schools do better. want to have you just talk for a moment about why school choice in particular, is something that resonates with you. >> it resonates with me school choice resonates with me both as a policymaker, as someone who has the honor of representing the great people of eastern washington here on capitol hill, but also as a mom. and i have three kids.

i have one that has down's syndrome, special needs. and as i think about the issue of education, and the impact that it has on our lives, and the importance of having an equal opportunity to education for everyone in this country, i don't think there's any more important issue that we face as a country. and you think about the next generation, how we make sure that every student, every person in this country reaches their full potential. it's going to happen as we have more opportunities, more education choices. and i've lived it myself. you know i first of all, in my own life i'm grateful -- i was the first in my family to graduate from college. i was also someone that was on the wrong track when i was in junior high in the public schools, and my mom and dad helped start a school at that point. and i'm grateful they had the opportunity to do that in our community to come together and say, you know what we need to start a school here and it got

me back on track. so i'm grateful for that. i also have known this issue as a mom. and it has only reinforced my belief and the importance of these choices, and having the opportunities for every child. my oldest, cole is -- he was born with down's syndrome. you know that's not the news that anyone wants to receive or dreams of receiving. but because of him, i am a better legislator, a better mom, and i understand this issue more clearly. and i'm grateful, i'm so grateful that as a mom i can go out there and i can find -- i could go visit schools and i could figure out, okay, i think this is going to be the school where cole has the best opportunity to reach his full potential. and i'm proud to say right now he's in a charter school and he's doing exceptional. he's in second grade. and he is reading. he's learning his math and he's contributing already in ways that were totally unimaginable

when he was first born. [ applause ] >> governor jindal? you know i used to teach high until in baton rouge louisiana, 25 years ago so i'm familiar with louisiana's troubled legacy in education. under your watch there's been some real progress made. curious if you could talk a little bit about some of the key pieces there and the role that school choice has played in helping to push that forward. >> well thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> first of all i want to thank the senator for having us for hosting us. i was so impressed one of his very first speeches on the floor of the senate when he was first a u.s. senator was exactly about this topic. i know he has asked us to recognize everybody else in this room. i'd like to ask the crowd to give a great round of applause to our host our senator, tim scott. [ applause ] and i think he said the reason we're here better than anybody else could. i mean i just want, just for

emphasis, the circumstances of a child's birth shouldn't determine their outcomes as an adult. unfortunately it's happening too often in our country. if we allowed that to happen, i wouldn't be here today. my dad one of nine just like cathy, he was the only one that got past the fifth grade in his family. none of his older brothers none of his older sisters, none of his younger brothers, none of his younger sisters ever got an education. that as students the reason i know this is i heard this story every single day growing up. i don't know if your parents are like that telling you how tough it was growing up. if he didn't get an education, i wouldn't be here. it's also great on the panel the congresswoman she and i were elected in the same class. i remember when it was cathy mcmorris, before she was married, before she became a mom. congratulations on your great success. in louisiana we've done several things. the single most important, i'm crowd that we've increased the number of charter schools nearly double. i'm proud that we have changed the way we evaluate our teachers.

i'm proud that we have done several things and new orleans is often cited as a city where over 90% of the kids are in charter schools. 100% of the parents get to decide where their children go to school. we have reason remarkable gains. we've doubled the percentage of kids doing reading and math on grade level. the percentage of kids in failing schools before katrina was 65%. now it's down to 4% going to on f-rated school. there's more work to be done but it shows you you don't have to wait a long time to make dramatic improvements. and i get so frustrated when people tell you wait for incremental gains. the reason this is so important, look at the little boys and girls in this room. they've only got one chance to grow up. i would invite anybody that opposes school choice or educational reform to come tell them why they should have to wait. if all those laws and changes the single most important thing we did, because there were a lot of detail laws. you can give letter grades to your schools you can change your state's tenure policies you can allow good operators to

have more than one school authorized at a time, you can give them locker approval processes to shut down failing schools, you can do online schools like we have done. you can do forced choice. the most important thing and it's not real complicated is you let the dollars follow the child, instead of making the child follow the dollars. and i'm here to tell you that -- [ applause ] charter schools are great but that doesn't mean every child should be in a charter school. every child is different and the people who know best are the moms and dads. maybe a child would do better in a traditional public school or charter school an online school, a private school, a dual enrollment program. maybe a catholic school, an independent school. the point is, empower parents. and today we have that but only for the wealthy. so if you're wealthy you can move to a neighborhood with great schools. if you're wealthy you can save your money and send your children to a great private school. we have reverse means testing in education. if you don't have the resources you're more likely to be trapped in a failing school. that's the exact opposite of

what we're supposed to be doing. education should help america be an aspirational society. it should also be helping us to grow our economy. it should also be helping us to produce engaged responsible citizens. last thing i'll say is you're going to hear on a later panel, a woman here today a former state senator from new orleans championed author of one of our bills, and for her it wasn't about partisan politics. she's a democrat and i'm a republican but she was so passionate, so eloquent that she went to the mic and said the kids that will benefit are the kids i was elected to represent. the kids that otherwise don't normally have a choice in this process. so to answer your question there have been dozens of laws, i'm proud of all of them. the single most important thing we did was to let the dollars follow the kids to empower every parent to make the choice that makes the best sense for their child, instead of having a one size fits all. i do want to thank afc and the friedman foundation they were great partners as we fought to make that happen in louisiana. [ applause ] senator grooms, love to hear

a little bit about how you came to the issue and some of the challenges you struggled with question for school choice in south carolina. >> well, first of all, thank you. thank you, senator scott for bringing us all here to the. we live in an exceptional nation. we do. some people don't like to say that, but we do. we live in an exceptional nation. we have the highest standard of living, the greatest quality of life with any people who have ever been on this planet. and you have to ask yourself why. because we're the freest people. we value freedom. we value freedom. we will die to defend freedom. we employ freedom and every aspect of our lives. we believe that you should have choices. jefferson. jefferson memorial saw it this morning, jefferson defines freedom as having choices. because of these choices that we've achieved more than any peoples that have ever come

before us. but for some reason, we don't think that those choices should extend to parents when it comes to their child's education. it's mind boggling. i don't get it. we see how freedom has created such wealth such prosperity. how freedom has allowed us to become an exceptional nation. we need an exceptional public school system. we need an exceptional private school system. we need an exceptional delivery system of education and in order to have that let's let freedom work through the schools. because, freedom only works every time. choice matters. choice is freedom. you'll root out what doesn't work. and then you'll elevate what does work. and when it comes to education, who loves the children more?

the government? or their parents? who has the child's best interests at heart? the school board? or a parent? i know more about my children and the type of education that would work best for them than anybody on our school board than any secretary of education would. i want to be able to offer my children and the children of south carolina, and i want to see the children of this nation, have choices. real choices in their education. not every child is the same. every child learns differently. but when we allow choices when we give parents choices, we give them freedom. and through freedom we have excellence. and we will build upon that and maintain our excellent nation. thank you, senator. [ applause ] senator scott, i've heard you talk occasionally about how

school choice became a passion of yours. especially with all these students in the room today, i thought it might be interesting if you want to share a little bit of that part of your biography. >> certainly. let me say before i start that i know congresswoman mcmorris rodgers may have to leave before the panel is over because she's attending the funeral. >> yes, yes. i have until 10:30. >> i'll give her as much time to speak as possible. except right now. i'll tell you i came to the issue of school choice honestly. i grew up in poverty. my mother raised me by herself. she worked 16 hours a day to try to keep us off welfare. she was doing all that she could, and yet i was not doing that well. i went to four different elementary schools because, as some of you may know that when you're living in poverty, the chances are you may have to move a little bit and when you're moving too often you're changing schools. so for me my elementary years

was about happening from school to school to school and one of the reasons why i like what bobby or governor jindal said was that it's giving the resources to the child and letting the resources follow the child, it's so important, because if you're like me growing up in poverty, you can't fund the right schools if a kid keeps moving. allowing the resources to go with the kid is very important. but because of that challenging beginning, when i was a freshman in high school, and i was walking out, i was not doing very well. i failed world geography. actually i failed high school. i failed out of high school as a freshman. i failed world geography. i think i may be the only united states senator ever fail civics. which is the study of politics. and then i arrived in the senate and realized that maybe i'm not the only one that failed civics. [ applause ]

i might not be by myself after all. and then i also failed spanish, and english. i know it's tough -- you can't even believe i'm on the panel right? i understand. i understand. when you fail spanish and english, they don't call you bilingual. they call you biignorant because you can't speak any language. but that experience growing up helped to instruct me and inform me about the power of education. that is truly the power of freedom. as a legislator i have dedicated the vast majority of my opportunity agenda to setting captives free. to making sure that every child everywhere, has a chance to succeed, and for me it was easy to come to the conclusion that

without choices without options, without flexibility parents like mine and parents like stacy and others would not be able, would not be able to get their kids the education necessary for your success for your achievement, and more importantly for your significance. so this issue of school choice to me is a part of my dna. [ applause ] congresswoman, right now capitol hill is wrestling with the reauthorization of no child left behind act. back in 2001 which governs the biggest share of federal dollars supporting k-12 education. most of k-12 education is driven by states and communities, so there's this real question of how much the federal government should be involved. and i'm wondering how that comes to the school choice conversation. what role, if any should the

federal government be playing as far as promoting school choice, or is that really a state and local conversation? >> right. >> well i'm someone that believes the best decisions for education are always going to come at the local level. and it really is with local school boards, with parents, in communities, those are where the best decisions are going to come. and yes, the reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act, it was at one time termed no child left behind is up for reauthorization. it's overdue. and you know what? this congress, this new congress here in 2015 believes that moving forward on some education priorities needs to be at the top of the list for this congress. and it's going to be done in a way, though, that is empowering local opportunities to make those decisions. and now you mentioned, okay as you mentioned there is a limited role for the federal government. there's some low-income dollars that the federal government has that we prioritize, that we send

to the states. but within our reauthorization, we want those dollars to follow the student. and so we give the states the option to allow those dollars to follow students, for example. we do encourage an expansion of charter schools, what the federal government has done so far is basically said, you know, we want more charter schools in america. but this time, it is really giving, i'd say, more tools to allow those charter schools to be improved. to allow for things you know really focusing on those charter schools that have proven themselves to be successful and lifting them up as models. also, you know, perhaps allowing for those that want some kind of a weighted lottery to be able to do so. to focus on poverty issues, or focus on those with disabilities and allow more options there. but we want -- we also want to hold charter schools accountable and ensure that those that are not performing well are held accountable. so those are some things, but it's really empowering local

communities, and local school boards to make those decisions. the only other issue i might put on the table is that i'm really excited about encouraging schools to look more at blended learning. and i've just introduced some legislation along with senator rubio and senator hatch in the senate that is focused on promoting this blended learning which is kind of the next generation of really focus on individualized education so that we know in realtime how each student is doing, day by day, empowering the teachers the schools that i -- i visited one here in anna cost yeah and it's a tough neighborhood in washington, d.c. but this school last year embraced blended learning, and the teachers were just really engaged inspired about coming to work every day, the students were anxious to learn, and you could look, the principal could look on her wall every day and know how every

student in that school was doing in a short amount of time the school in anacostia had seen tremendous growth. again it comes down to empowering local communities, local school boards, giving them more choices and really allowing them to decide what is best for the kids in that community so that they can reach their full potential. [ applause ] congresswoman, i'd love to hear you just a bit further on this what you talked for instance about charter accountability. which is charter schools have to get permission to open from an authorizer and part of that deal is they can be shut down if they're not serving children well. particularly given your own experience as a mom with a child with special needs recent research by the university of arkansas has found parents in the d.c. scholarship program seem not to put a high premium on test scores. they look at a number of other

factors and test scores just doesn't show up when you interview them about what they're concerned about. i'm curious in your own mind, as you think about good charter school accountability and how do we make sure that schools are serving kids well, how much of that should be a question of student achievement on reading and math assessments, and how much needs to be about something else? >> right. well, that's a great question. and i think it's important that we're looking at how parents and school boards make sure that they have the information so that they can make the best decision possible. and sometime ss transparency as to what is really happening in a school can be difficult to get. i think it definitely goes beyond a test score itself. that's one measurement. but there's other issues that i think need to be taken into consideration. as we make those decisions but ultimately it's about transparency. so that parents can be involved in making that decision. and that the administration of that school will know what's really going on.

and if the children are getting the education that they need. >> senator? >> i'm thinking back on what cathy was talking about there. one of the things i realized through the d.c. opportunities scholarship program was the level of parental satisfaction was over 90%. and when you think about why that is, part of that is because of the environment that their children are in. a culture that is conducive for learning and high achievement, but also encourages each child to maximize their own potential. and when you factor in on top of the actual academic progress being made by a student, i think a part of the foundation for that academic achievement seems to be a culture that is conducive for achieving and an environment that seems to be best for the child. and the parent seems to be very excited about a place where their child gets a quality

education, and the child is safe. the environment is solid. that the teachers are loving and invested. so i think that's why it's so important. the other characteristics of a successful program that goes beyond simple academic achievement. >> so governor you've been wrestling with this obviously on the ground. curious how louisiana you've struggled both to ensure that schools of choice are good schools without taking away the ability of parents to make decisions that aren't just about test scores. >> absolutely. a couple things, one you talk about charter schools. i think charter schools, one of the things that make them so different, not only did they have the flexibility, compared to traditional public schools, but they actually have to earn their students. and the reality is that parents will vote with their feet. if the charter school is not doing well they will not enroll their students in those charter schools and charter schools if they fail to perform year after year are ultimately shut down and i think that's important. there is accountability there.

that doesn't happen nearly as often with traditional public schools. there's not that accountability. when it comes to transparency and parental information i think cathy was exactly right, you have to provide information to parents, but parents make decisions based on a number of factors. i've met with moms in new orleans, who particularly told me look, this is the first time now that their children are sometimes going to charter schools or parochial schools under our choice programs saying this is the first time my child has gone to a school where they're wearing a uniform or this is the first time i felt like my child was safe. i had one mom say this was the first time her child brought home homework. or this is the first time my child is thinking about going to college. there are a number of reasons and factors parents think when picking a school. i'd love to talk about this whole issue of tests. the reality is the reason we have tests was i think it was a rightful response to the fact that many schools, especially those serving disadvantaged low-income minority students weren't doing a very good job. and i think there was a good impulse that we've got to

correct that. i think the pendulum has swung too far the other way where we've become so obsessed with tests and many classes were pretesting and prepretesting and prepretesting it feels like all you're doing is testing not really learning. and we crowded out arts and music and social studies because all we're testing is math and reading and that becomes to dominate a school day to the detriment of these other areas. you know i think there are two things we need to do with tests. one, we need to bench mark the tests so that schools have greater diversity of choices so there's not just one central test that everybody has to use a top-down approach. there are many great assessments. why not have a benchmark and we've done this before where people can take different tests and you can compare how those students are doing across different states or different countries, even, but secondly i think we need to be more aggressive in giving schools waivers so when schools have done a good job they can come back and say can we waive these tests? maybe we've got other ways to measure our students are learning like ap tests or character evaluations or assessments. but the point is if we're showing or teaching a year's worth of work in a year's time

we should be held to the same just micromanagement on all these tests and you can have accountability with flexibility. and finally in terms of the federal government's role. i'm so proud of the senator he's got so many different great pieces of legislation but he's got one in particular on choice that tries to give military families more choice. that gives more teeth to making those dollars more affordable. we call it back pack funding whether it's title 1 or other funding where it really does follow the student. so many times legislators here will vote for funding for kids that they want to have an education or have special needs or be disadvantaged and they get extra dollars but those dollars don't actually go to help educate those children. so often woo fund our schools based on seniority and staffing costs, as a result the dollars that our senators vote for for the kids don't end up benefiting those kids as they debate no child left behind the reauthorization i hope they will bloc grant a lot of the funding. i hope they will reduce the role of the department of education. the department of education should really be involved in civil rights, should be involved in transparency and

deregulation. and that's about it. everything else should be done at the state and local level, quite frankly. [ applause ] i won't start a whole new topic but i do think that means you need to get rid of common core but that's a whole new topic i won't even begin that as well. [ applause ] >> senator grooms one of the conversations that we talk about a lot when it comes to school choice is whether school choice is really for those families who are trapped in schools that are just not working for those children, or whether school choice is a mechanism for helping all families educate their children better. for instance it's useful to know that about 70% of the nation's families tend to give their child's school an "a" or a "b." so it's really about 30% of families that are really frustrated. as you've thought about this and work on this issue, curious whether you think of this as something that's really for the families that feel trapped or whether school choice is something that's more universal? >> school choice is for everyone. freedom only works every time,

and if my child is at what many would consider a great public school, but if he's not learning, it's not helping him. and if a family is trapped in a school and they want to go somewhere else and they can't and they know it's not working then i hear from the school district, well you got to give us more money. that's the problem. the $12,500 we spend on a child, we need $20,000. we need more. and so we appropriate the money and the child -- and the children are still at that school, the s.a.t. scores are bad, they understand -- momma knows that the child's not learning to read, and they're still stuck there. but if we allow freedom to work, if we give that child in a rural area, who has basically no choice, they're at a school, they're at a school that's failing, momma knows that the child is not getting

opportunities that she would want her child to have. if we give that child an opportunity, and he goes somewhere else he may drive 50 miles to the nearest town to a better public school. even within the public school sphere. if we allow choice some choice is better than no choice. the more choices, the greater the freedom. the greater the freedom the greater the quality of education. the more exceptional our nation becomes. so when you give choices you allow freedom to work. and those schools, they're losing students. well they got to do something a little bit different to retain those students. so, the poor performing schools, they do better. the good schools well they do even better. because when we're competing for dollars, when you're competing for the back pack funding, you'll do what's necessary to grow your school into great educational choices and opportunities. so school choice is for everyone. it's not just for those that are in bad schools. it's not just for those that

have really good schools. if your school is not working it's not working, you need another choice. >> senator, how do you respond to those who say, look, i hear what you're saying about freedom. but it feels like charter schooling, it feels like school vouchers are an attack on traditional school districts. it feels like you're trying to dismantle something that's important to america. >> the senator or -- >> both of y'all. got too many senators. >> i introduced some of the first school choice legislation in our state back in 1998. i've introduced bill after bill after bill and i hear even from some of my good friends involved in public school teachers, what are you trying to do? are you trying to destroy public education? and what a horrible statement. no one wants to try to destroy public education. we just want to make sure that educational opportunities are available to every child.

and freedom works. we've got examples. we can see where school choice programs have worked in states where they tried it. in every incremental change we've made in our state, whether it was creating the legislation to allow for charter schools, you're destroying public education. well we created some charter schools and wow, it worked. we weren't creating fast enough so we created a statewide charter school district. we have more charter schools. we went in and created some choices within the public schools and it worked. then we went in and made it some, where you could have opportunity scholarships for exceptional needs children. our first choice program that involved the private sector. and, there's -- i don't think we got too many naysayers now. every time we've been able to expand choices in our state, we've proven that it works. that it benefits both the -- for public schools and for all schools, and when parents make

that choice when they're empowered to make that choice all schools perform better. so there are some with power and money, they never want to give it up. never. that's one thing you learn about government. those with power and money never give it up voluntarily. it has to be a grassroots fight to fight for what's right. freedom is worth fighting for. and i thank those to are here today. i thank those who are listening and understanding that freedom works. let's fight for it. >> senator scott how do you respond to those same kinds of concerns? >> there's no doubt that education is improving in a large part of the improvement we've seen has come because of the competition in the education states. let's just focus for just a few minutes on the public school options, and forget about the private school choice. frankly, if you think about the advent of magnet schools. charter schools. home school, online schools. virtual schools. five of those -- five of those

options i named were within the public footprint. so the reality of it is, there is a way to improve education that includes public school options. but in these the most powerful tool the parent has is choice. i say let us not relegate that choice simply to the public footprint. i'm a big believer that whatever the parent says works for her, very often as a single mom who is already working two shifts like mine was, let's give her the peace of mind to choose the quality of education that she has determined is best for her child. and when that happens, i believe that that competition will drive even better results in the local neighborhood schools. and when that happens, kids get a far better education. i think their expectations in life skyrocket.

and we all benefit from that. >> let's shift gears a bit, governor. you've been successful at pushing obviously the recovery school district in louisiana which predates you has played a big role in new orleans. but you've pushed course choice, which i'd love to hear you talk about for a few moments. you've pushed statewide school vouchers for low income children. you have pushed charting schooling expansion in the state. could you talk a little bit about how these options are different, and a little bit about the practical challenges of pushing them forward in state. >> sure. a couple of things. i couldn't agree with the senator more. both senators more. it really is about choice and freedom. so for example, forced choice, i think this really is one of the waves of the future. so we have said not only do we want the dollars to follow the child. you've heard about the charter schools. you've heard about the statewide school choice. it also involves unpacking those dollars so they're divisible as well. it may mean that you start your day at a public school, maybe

you're at a rural school or an urban school, it may be that you would benefit by taking an online course. or maybe you'd benefit by taking a course offered by a local employer so not only do you get an education, you get a certification or a school that will help you enter the workforce one day. so what we have done with forced choice is say not only does the dollar follow the student but it's divisible so that private and other course providers could be a local university, could be a technical college, could be an online provider, it could be a private employer can also offer courses during the school day, you can earn academic credit for those courses, and we will pay for it with the dollars that we're being allocated for that student's education. so you look at course choice, when you look at our scholarship program. you look at charter schools. we have over 90,000 students in louisiana in some form of school choice out of a total of 700,000, roughly students that were in public schools in total. but the point is this shouldn't just be oftentimes choices started. and it makes sense because people are mostly concerned about kids that are trapped in

failing schools, which starts with low income families, or it starts with kids that are in failing schools. but i believe like the senators have both said it needs to be for every child. and every parent. and this really is a fundamental philosophical question. if you only remember one thing about this whole debate because it can be confusing with all the acronyms. you have the education savings accounts which i'm a big supporter of that arizona has done, course choice, charter schools, scholarship programs tax rebate programs like we do where we give a dollar or dollar rebate for those that donate to scholarship organizations. it boils down to one essential question, do you trust mom and you're right it's usually moms, but moms and dads do you trust moms to make the best decisions for their kids? or do you think there are bureaucrats, baton rouge, washington, d.c., or somewhere else, that know the needs of those kids better. this was illustrated in our debate, you can how do you get this done? it is contentious because the

status quote don't like change. for example we have one union leader in louisiana who said parents, especially poor parents don't have a clue when it comes to making choices for their kids. educational choices for their kids. i know a group of moms who told me government we make choices for our kids every day. we know the needs of our kids better than those bureaucrats. what made the difference, i believe, in louisiana it's fine for us to speak about this. the one group we need to really thank for being here are the students and the parents who let them come here. what really made the difference in baton rouge it's when moms show up in legislative hearings. it's when moms show up at the capitol. because education reform too often is an asymmetrical fight. the people who like the status quo. they show up and they will tell their legislative leaders we care about this, we're watching this process, if you try to make change they will criticize you. we had recalls atempted against our speakers and others we had protests. it got to be so bad whenever there were protests in front of the capitol identify tell my young children, those are just parades for daddy.

don't worry about it. but more powerful than any special interests are a group of moms showing up at the capitol saying, this isn't political for me. it's not a partisan issue for me. doesn't matter if i'm democrat or republican this is about my little girl. about my little boy. there's no more eloquent defender or speaker or education reform, for school choice. it's not a u.s. senator, it's not a governor, it's not a state senator, it's really the kids here and their parents, and so what made the difference in louisiana was we got those families involved. we got employers involved. we said if this doesn't change you're not going to have the scaled workforce. the final thing i'll say about this, though, is there are a lot of studies about how education can improve your earning potential. about how a better education can reduce the chance of teenager will become pregnant increase the chances you'll go to college. one study showed that america could add trillions of dollars for our economy if we simply caught up with canada or other countries over the next several years in terms of educating our kids. and those are all great arguments. there's a study out of stanford

saying you could increase your earning power by thousands of dollars by having a great teacher in the classroom. but education, and that's great and i'm all for it for those reasons. but education, the reason we provide public education in our country, the reason education is so 30r7b in the first place is we're a self-governing republic. if you want informed citizens not only able to make their own decisions, but also to help make the decisions that make our country so exceptional, and so great, the reason historically that this country started investing in public education was to make sure we could be a self-governing republic. that we could use those freedoms our founding fathers gave us. this is really about teaching the next generation of citizens to endure -- ensure that this republic endures. this is more than just economics. it really is. what is the quality of the country we want to leave to our children and grandchildren so the most important group in this entire conversation the boys and girls that are here i want to thank you for -- i know that you hate missing a school day to be up here. i know that was a big, big sacrifice to come up here. thank you for coming up here and thank four parents for caring enough about your education. [ applause ]

>> so senator scott let's close the panel with this question. you've tackled this issue both in the legislature at the state level in south carolina, you spent a little bit of time now here in washington trying to wrestle with this issue. as far as assembling coalitions. as far as trying to bring people to the to do the things that all of you are talking about, i wonder if you have a couple of insights you could share with folks about what you've seen along the way. >> the more you talk about the issue of choice, the more people start paying attention. and one of the things that we have to have happen throughout the country is a grassroots conversation about what's happening to our kids today. if we have that conversation you'll find that coalition that exist will be drawn to that conversation. but what i think is more powerful is that the parents are

engaged at the grassroots level. and then you find out of those conversations, the seed germinates and it starts to produce more organizations, more interests, and more desire. one of the most exciting signs as recent is the number of athletes, special athletes at a starting charter school. entertainers who now are starting to come out on behalf of school choice because when you think about answering the question what's next, you better education who is present. because if you want to have the best what's next let's educate who is present today. and so that conversation around the country starts at the grassroots level and we have a number of partners like aei and others who have done a fabulous job of providing us good data and good information to

encourage the conversation that goes to the next level. thank you. >> thank you. if you will all join me in thanking the panel. been a terrific start to the day. [ applause ] we're now going to break for a few minutes and reconvene at 11:00.

so this day-long forum on education policy is taking a short break at this point. coming up next a panel discussion on how to strengthen communities through education.

and later we'll hear from a pair of former education secretarys, rod paige who served president george w. bush and senator lamar alexander, who held the same post in george h.w. bush's administration. while we're in this break here's a look at the week ahead in washington. -- >> to our table this morning jonathan allen washington bureau chief with bloomberg news here to talk about the week ahead here in washington. let's begin with what's going to happen at the white house this morning. angela merkel is in a meeting with the president behind closed doors, the two will hold a joint news conference about what to do with the situation in ukraine. do you expect that that debate comes to capitol hill, as well? i know there's lawmakers who believe they should be armed but is there going to be a legislative effort on this? >> you know, greta, i think congress is probably going to wait to see what the president says here. this is a really tricky issue. obviously there's a desire to

combat the russians moving in to ukraine, and at the same time, a desire not to hand the ukrainians arms that could be used, you know, long into the future. we've seen the i think there's a hesitation there, probably a reasonable hesitation. i know the, one of the leading ukrainian diplomats was in our offices just a couple of weeks ago, basically beg egg for this aid, for the able toy the fight back. there are subtle ranges of weapons. some are more strictly defensive. some more strictly offensive. radars that will sense incoming fire and fire back at the spot, so, i think it remains to be scene. i'm curious to see what the president and chancellor merkel will have to say. i would imagine it might be a couple of other topics. >> and the differences between

the two of them, how are those addressed? some in the administration like joe biden saying we should arm these rebels, but john kerry over the weekend sounding resistant to that idea. >> it's interesting. even within the democratic party even among former foreign relations senate chairman, i don't know how it ends up playing out. there's a lot going on in the world. always a lot going on in the world, but particularly, a lot of hostility. still talking about a b possible authorization, use of military force against isil. there are those in congress very gung ho about that and some about the france situation. i know for a while, sanctions seemed to be the watch word and now, arms are the watch word, so you can see this really escalating. >> does the president send over language for a new aumf this

week, when does it arrive to the doorsteps of capitol hill? >> i'm certain that there's at least some discussion going on in congress about what the parameters of what would look like. they don't want to send something up that's sort of rejected on its face. that said, the president wanted to get syria a couple of years ago and he said sent one up that he wanted to do that and you know capitol hill broke into 535 separate voices, one for each member of congress. i think they're trying to be careful about how they do this. i would not be surprised if we saw, wouldn't be terribly surprised if we waited longer. i and others trying to find the language and also, to clipapitol hill. >> and what will democrats do? how does that play out politically for 2016? >> what's fascinating is that

it's -- in different ways. i think there are a good number of democrats that don't want to be seen as soft on isis and yet, many are also very weary of give giving the president the authority to go to war. at the same time, you've got republicans who say let's g in and this sort of isolationist brand of the less to go in with arms republicans as well so it's an interesting thing that crosses and it's not clear that there's consensus on the hill. they want the president -- and then they get to decide 2016 when paul obviously somebody -- places on this particular issue. i think the real question is can the white house come up with a way to go after isis that is restrictive in a way that isn't

so restrictive, raise the concerns -- including speaker of the house john boehner, who has been differential to every president who has wanted to engage militarily. the people believe the white house should have a strong and in that, so we're still far away from actually seeing this happen. >> and then tied to this is funding for homeland security to protect this country against any sort of attack against terrorist groups and "wall street journal" editorial board weighing in asking can the gop change. the agency will be pushed into a partial shutdown even as the terrorist threat is at the forefront of public attention, with charlie hebdo and islamic state murders. imagine if the transportation

security administration failed to intercept an islamic state agent in route to detroit. >> the story idea here the republicans have traditionally had an advantage on national security, at least seated some of that to the democrats right now, not only with the homeland security funding. you've got a situation with kefs spend defense spending where the capitol hill, ones that are saying no, we don't want to do that because we don't want to see domestic spending increase as well, so there's an interesting moment here politically where you've seen republicans who had been so unified as strong on the fence and supportive of anything that could be sort of toned that have kind of splintered and i think that's sort of the thought of the 2000 reinnovationvasion of iraq.

even past the 2006 midterms where they got shell aked and are really weary of sending americans into battle and are more concerned on the homeland security front than keeping the department funded. at least that was the issue at the end of last year. so, we'll see how it plays out. this is something that comes to a head. i think speaker boehner was trying to kick the can down the road, senator mcconnell was trying to kick the can down the road and now, they're having to deal with this issue of isolation. so i think i should say i wasn't watching that as closely in the senate. i think what you're going to see is legislation moving forward to find this, but how -- >> what do you think, what does this "wall street journal" editorial put any pressure on

republican leaders? they conclude by saying it's not too soon to say that the fate of the gop majority is on the line. a rump minority and willing to compromise is playing into democratic hands. this is no way to run a congressional majority and the only winners of gop dysfunction will be mr. obama nancy pelosi and hillary clinton. >> absolutely. that's what the editorial is designed to do, put pressure on the republicans, say, wake up. you can be against a comprehensive immigration reform plan. you can be against the president's executive order on immigration, but if you start cutting off your nose to spite your face, you will have done that and hand the president and democratic leaders in congress a victory. shutting down part of the government doesn't prove to be an effective strategy. you can see from the last midterm election, didn't hurt republican republicans as much it could have. that short-term shutdown, but i

don't get the sense that anybody wants to go campaign on hey, we shut the government down and i don't think they want to say hey, we shut the homeland security down. >> get the 60 votes the legislature that the house passed to stop the president's executive action on immigration only able to get 54 votes. on cnn's state of the union yesterday, the homeland security secretary, jay johnson, talked about this funding and the deadline of february 27th and what could happen. i am on capitol hill now virtual virtualicallyvirtual virtually every day talking to democrats and republicans about a fully funded democratic of homeland security and these times in particular. we're on a continuing resolution, which expires on february 27th, which is less than 20 days at this point.

and as long as we're on a continuing resolution, that in and of itself creates uncertainty about how we go about our homeland security missions and if we go into government shutdown, for example, that means furloughing employees, furloughing homeland security officials as craig fugate, the administrator of fema pointed out, if we go into government shutdown, he's got to furlough something like 80% of his fema workforce and so, i'm on the hill every day stressing importance of a fully funded department of homeland security. separate and apart from ryders to try to defund our efforts to reform the immigration system. >> jay johnson yesterday on state of the union, this debate going to be continueing. what position does this put the house? they've passed this bill, but

can't get through the senate so what are they going to do? >> puts the house in position of throwing rocks at the white house for all the way down pennsylvania avenue. it's a long enough reach that you can't really hit the white house with the rocks. i think ultimately, they're going to have a crisis point here in the next few weeks and i don't think they have a way out of it yet. >> february 27th and they're supposed to be here in washington this week and then out the next week. for president's day week. >> i don't think time is a problem. i think coming up with a plan that both the republicans and senate can pass that will get democratic support is the problem and you know the democratic position, this is reminiscent of what nancy pelosi thought to do with republicans on things. in the last congress. i think their position is we're going to stand strong until the republicans come with something clean and then we'll give them our votes to get it passed. that puts speaker