deral government does. so you and i just have a disagreement as we look at this whether this is a productive way to look at things. and i know the american people will decide that themselves on what they think about that. i wanted to ask you about the solvency we've talked about the demographic problems we have with medicare, social security and the numbers that i've gotten is we've got the demographic problem challenges we look at it as very immediate. it's more than a demographic challenge when it comes to the social security disability fund because as i understand it, the trustees have said that the fund will be exhausted in 2016, which is next year. does the president's budget do anything to address the structural issues or the fact that this disability fund is going to be exhausted next year and i'm worried because the people that really need this, if we ignore this, they will only be able to pay 1% of disability benefits.

do you do anything about that? >> we're very concerned as well. the most simple, direct step that's been taken many times before under both parties is a small reallocation of the payroll tax. and we ought to take that step and make sure that those who have earned these benefits get those benefits. >> well let's -- and i don't mean to interrupt you because i don't have a lot of time. so, what you're doing is basically ignoring the fact that it's exhausted and transferring the money. let's be honest. when you say a small allocation, that's transferring the money, yet it's a system that's going insolvent, so we're transferring the money from one pot to another. we're not solving the problem. >> let me finish, please. the combined funds remain solvent until 2033, but we are taking steps on the disability

side specifically. we have a number of steps in the budget that will ensure those who are due the benefits get those and a number of pilots and other efforts that will ensure that anyone who can work is able to. and so, we take steps there and in the longer run on social security, the demographic challenges, comprehensive immigration reform is one of the most important steps we can take to make sure that social security is solvent going-forward. >> as i look at this budget, i don't see steps in here that are going to solve this problem by 2016. or any real meaningful steps, but since you've just said they are in there, i would like a specific answer to me question for the record. thank you. >> happy to do that. >> since senator kane isn't here, senator king.

>> thank you. i would echo a lot of my comments from the senator in chicago. it's going great things for the chinese who are using it to build highways and airports and such. i find myself in agreement with both sides of the debate and i would suggest mr. chairman it would be a useful exercise to convene this committee in workshop to get us all together to have the kind of discussion we're having in the context of this hearing about revenues, debt, deficit interest and threats to the economy. i think we could all benefit from sharing those views. i agree with my colleagues who talk about debt and deficit. we cannot ignore interest. and the fact that's been pointed out numerous times, interest will exceed defense, interest will exceed, almost equal social

security. it's a gigantic expenditure that really does nothing for us and it's going to heat up autothe up all the programs everybody likes. whether you like defense or head start or whatever, it's going to crowd those programs out, so i agri with that. i think that's a very debt, the debt and the deficit is a serious problem and to me, lowering the deficit is progress, but not an answer because the hole is still getting deeper. i think we really need to think about that. on the other hand, as senator johnson pointed out, the best way to get out of this mess is through economic growth. and there are several strategies that involve spending money. infrastructure's probably the most important one. lincoln at the age of 23 when he first ran for the illinois legislature, put out a pamphlet on investing in roads and waterways.

it was an infrastructure plan because that's the basis upon which the economy depends and we are doing a woeful job of underfunding our infrastructure at this time. the other big way to grow the economy is through education. the biggest economic stimulus program the federal government in the history of the united states was the gi bill. after world war ii, which sent millions of people to college for the first time and really expanded was the basis for the expansion of the middle class. both of those things involved money. and expenditures, so how do we get out of the problem, how do we grow the economy, make the expenditures that we have to make at the same time, not keep digging ourselves deeper into the deficit hole? and it seems to me there are three or four strategies that we ought to put together into a comprehensive strategy. one, is we have to look at federal expenditures and make sure they make sense and that they're not duplicative.

the idea that every one made is perfect and good and useful and effectious, that doesn't pass the straight face test. two, we have to look at the structural health care costs. that's one of the biggest drivers of the deficit is health care costs. it's not national parks, defense. it's the sheer cost of health care costs. steven brill has written a whole book about how expensive it is to be treated in this country, twice as expensive per capita as anywhere else in the world. the reason health care costs are expensive is that they're expensive and we need to focus on structural changes, which i know the affordable care act does, but that has to be a national priority. if we continue as we are and let health care costs fee for service continue to drive the kind of escalation, which unfortunately may recover shortly, we'll never get out of this hole. and then the next strategy is some kind of revenues. we can't deal with the demographic problem if don't look at revenues. my concern and i'm interested in a balanced budget amendment. i think something that puts

constraint makes sense. on the other hand, if you add the no balance amendment and no tax pledge, it creates a ratchet effect that you will never solve these problems and squeeze out everything else as you pointed out, but payments to the elderly. there's got to be some relief built into that and that's where i think we need to have some discussion about revenues and i don't know what the right number is. whether it's 19%, 20%, but we have to take account of the fact we've got this big in the python, which is the retirement of the baby boomers and that's going to end at a certain point, by the way, somebody said in the long run, a famous philosopher said in the long run, we're all dead, but the demographic reality of the next 25 years has got to be dealt with and we didn't just say well, we're going to maintain taxes at historical levels and therefore, meet all of the obligations to the national defense and cover the cost of our commitments to the elderly. so, it seems to me it's got to be a combined strategy of ago knowledging the problem, number two, senator reductions in expenditures. health care costs reductions.

revenues, probably from tax expenditures and investments in proven job growth strategy like education. i apologize there's not a question in there, mr. donovan. i did want to make one point. congratulations in getting us a budget on time. that hasn't happened before in recent history and i think you are due some credit for that. >> thank you. >> mr. chairman, could i take a moment? >> his time is expired. you can send us your answer. >> happy to do that. >> senator corker, we're going to have a vote that we're trying to get everything in before. >> thank you, mr. chairman and appreciate senator king's comments. i want to say i don't want to volunteer to die quickly to solve the social security problem, but i know that's a part of the solution.

so -- thank you for bringing the budget in on time. i think the focus on percentage of gdp, the 74.2% in keeping it steady, what we see happening year after year after year is people don't take into account things that happened like happened in '08 and '09. even though that's what you project to occur, that's under sem rosy circumstances and things will happen in the interim. that's what happens in the world we govern and i happen to think a balanced budget is one that keeps our nation strongest. i think that you know, the greatest threat the our national security is our inable thety to grapple with these issues. cbo director was in here saying that look, debt and deficits harm standard of living of americans. and yet, as projected in your budget, that just continues. it also slows growth, especially when you get to where we are in

the cycle, where we're having almost full recovery. that hurts the standard of living of americans, so basically, the way this budget is laid out, what we're doing, if we were to take this up, is we'd be hurting the standard of living of americans over time, more and more and more. i'm a little disappointed that you guys took a powder, if you will, on the highway program. basically we haven't solved one single problem since i've been here. not one. you know, key we keep kicking the can down the road. i've been here eight years. you've been here six. we have not solved one single problem. and instead of solving the infrastructure problem, y'all took some, an easy, some easy

money. probably won't work that way, but i do wish that y'all had look at that in a more serious way and put it on a steady pattern and i think all of us know that putting a lot of money quickly into infrastructure, more than has been in the past usually candidly leads to waste and not planning thicks out in an prominent way. spending has been over the last 50 years, at 20.1% and under current law, mandatory spending will be at 14.2% at the end of ten years and your budget, 14.8 and that obviously as everyone has said, creates huge problems. for 50 years, revenues have been 17.4%. and spending's been at 20.1. that's been with republican congresses, republican presidents. democratic congresses, presidents and so, i actually agree. we have a revenue problem. and a spending problem.

and as senator johnson mentioned, the best way to generate revenues is through robust economic growth, but we certainly have a problem on both sides. it's my belief that we need to go through good periods, times of balanced budgets and actually surpluses and then in bad times, there may be a need to have some deficits, but what we continue to do is bank on deficits forever. so i just have one question. i know this is generally speaking. sort of a wish list. some people would say an ideological budget. i don't want to be pejorative when i say this but i saw a large stack of budget documents on the table this morning. i thought, how upsetting those are going to be in the circular file after today.

it's an aspirational budget that's not going to be adopted. it says some things you'd like to see happen. my question is this. republicans can pass a budget, half to pass a budget. have to pass it in both bodies. and if we do it alone, the likelihood is we will nibble at some of these issues. but we don't solve the problem. because the president then will override the things that we may put forward. so, for us to really deal with these issues, with the president who has only two years left and has had the opportunity to lay out what he'd like to see happen, but knows it doesn't, do you discern any desire on behalf of the administration to sit down with all of us and work towards a budget proposal that is painful to all? but really solves the problem? >> senator, absolutely. and in fact we constructed our

budget building on really what was a bipartisan precedent in marie ryan which said we know discretionary spending is too low, we know that in the long run that our challenges are on the mandatory and on the revenue side. and what we ought to do, and this is what our budget does is more than fully pay for a dollar for dollar increase on the defense and nondefense side in discretionary spending, with reductions on the mandatory and new revenues. that is the model that we used. we think it is a model we can build on. it is what got us back to regular order on budgeting and it is what created more jobs because we got rid of mindless austerity and mindless crisis and we are ready in our budget because of bipartisan discussion this year and use it to solve our short-run and long-term challenges.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator purdue. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. donovan, thank you as well for providing this budget on time. i'm the rookie here and the benefit of that is you've run out of senators here today. but i would like to submit some questions later though in writing. but i have one question. and that is the severity in this debt that it is sustainable at about 95% of gdp. i personally disagree that gdp is the denominator and i believe growth should be the denominator. but i want to reads you a quote and put this in context. this is a quote from president obama june 23rd, 2008. the way bush has done it over the last eight years is to drive up our national debt from the first 52 presidents, bush 23

added some we have $9 trillion in debt that we're going to have to pay back. that's irresponsible. let me put it in context, in the year 2000 our debt to gdp was 55% of gdp. in 2010 -- or 2008 actually we added $4 trillion to the $6 trillion debt and since the last six years we added $8 trillion to that. this budget takes it up to $26 trillion. and at $18 trillion and if interest rates and i'm concerned about the forecast of interest rates because if you look at the sensitivity analysis and if you took it to the 30 year average, we'd be paying close to a trillion in interest today and i just don't think that is sustainable on a $4 trillion revenue source roughly. when i look at this thing --

that's one problem. the second problem is, these future liabilities that we don't address -- you commented a couple times that the social security medicare problem really accelerates in the second decade. those 100 plus dollars of liabilities -- we can characterize anyway you want to if you look at it per household which is really the way things get paid in this country. that's over $1 million per household in america today. i don't personally think that's sustainable. social security, medicare, medicaid, pension benefits, for federal employees and interest payments, these are all contributors. $1 million per household brings it home for me and my con constituent constituents. looking at the second decade and third decade kicking this can down the road how should we look at a debt that's 95% of gdp, some 5 to 6 times our revenue, being sustainable.

it occurs to me that this is a national security irk u, mr. donovan. we have these trees with a lot of countries around the world. one of those is taiwan that treaty says that if the country of taiwan is invaded by china, we have to go to taiwan and defend taiwan against china. the problem with doing that we have to borrow the money from china to go to taiwan and fight taiwan against china. my constituents want to know when we are going to balance the budget and how we will get out of the long term skpenty tours in the second and third decade. so the word sustainability is tricky and i get it. you said this is sustainable at 95 and declining. i disagree. i don't think it is sustainable but i would love to get your opinion why this is sustainable given the volatility of interest

rates that we've seen over the last 30 years. >> first of all, senator, recognize that when we came into office, we were facing enormously difficult fiscal circumstances and we have brought down the deficit by more than two thirds with a broad set of steps and the steps we've already taken have substantially reduces long-run deficits and debt. whether it is bringing down health care costs and a range of other steps we've taken on economic growth. and as i said earlier, we agreed we need to focus on the long-term steps and reducing the health care costs. >> with the time, i'm sorry to interrupt. but you still think that 95% of gdp and that is sustainable, i'm talking in the second and third decade, past our budget. >> our budget is not at 95% of gdp. under current law it would rise up to 81% of gdp. our budget changes that and brings it down in the ten year window to 73% and would actually keep it stabilized throughout the 25-year window which is really, as we talked about earlier, when the demographic

challenges are hitting us most strongly and that is why i say it is most sustainable. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> senator portman. who used to be in your position. >> as he reminded me at my position hearing. >> congratulations, you've been nominated to my job. and my worst day is yours today. and congratulations, you're doing a good job defending it but we have to set the record straight on a few things, this notion that this budget as you said earlier is all about, in response to senator corker's question, setting apart the ryan

murray proposal of let mandatory spending and breaking the caps and more discretionary spending, it is not. and i think perhaps you wanted the last few years to look good and this is the reality and i'll give you the numbers and i'm not going to ask you a question because these are what the numbers are. spending on the discretionary side goes from 6.5% now down to 4.5% of gdp and defense going down to 2.3% and the numbers look better after 2022 and 2024. so it is $2 trillion in new taxes, a trillion in new spending and you said mandatory is spending more, and i'm happy to share the charts with you. so i like your theory that you say you guys are following but the budget doesn't meet that standard.

and i know we're going to have some big differences in these two budgets but we have to figure this out. i think it is very obvious what the problem is and i think you guys skirt it. i'll ask you a bunch of questions. you talk about you need to raise more revenue. you have over $2 trillion in new taxes. over the last 50 years, is it true our taxes as a percent of gdp have been just under 18%? is that about right? >> roughly right. but i think as it was said earlier, the only time we balanced our budget that our economy was growing quickly, that our revenue levels were up 12% so we think our levels of spending are the right ones. >> so just before 2008-2009 we have had $161 billion and 18% in revenue to gdp. and by the way, this whole notion that you have done so

much better than you expected to do, the cbo baseline you inherited in 2009 that took into account the recession and included all of the war funding, in other words it had much higher levels of defense spending that we had, the defense line there that cbo gave you had deficits that were half of what have occurred, $3.4 trillion versus $6.7 trillion, and this year's $6.4 billion deficit is double what cbo projected for 2015 during that time. so, i mean, i don't think by the

standards that were set by the baseline then, including the recession taking into account and all the war spending that it's fair to say this has been a breakthrough that everything's going great. we've made all this progress. but let's continue on these question and the problem is obvious and we all know what it is and we aren't addressing it. so you take revenue up and discretionary and mandatory spending are falling as a percent of the economy over the long-term? that's a yes or no. it's yes, you know that. >> i think we are finding places on the mandatory side where we are reducing spending and i think i wanted to respond to your earlier point where we are stopping spending, with $4 million of reduction in medicare and medicaid and prop insurance

and program integrity savings. >> and on those entitlement and social security and debt, you take it from increasing 105%, to increasing 99% over the next ten years. i mean obviously that is the issue. so discretionary spending goes down, on both sides, they say this is great. it doesn't have more discretionary spending. it has less. it has less. for both defense and nondefense. health care entitlements do go from 105% to 99%. but it is 7.8% of gdp now and rises to 8% and it is scary because it is unsustainable so we're heading toward record high tax revenues and they go to the highest level of gdp ever. and near record discretionary levels and other mandatories so we are talking about entirely --

these incredibly important vital programs that we have to save for future generations and if we don't do that, mr. chairman, we'll let down the people who voted us to represent them. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. that, to your relief, concludes our questions for this morning. i want to thank you for agreeing to testify this morning. we appreciate your time here with us as long as the work you've done to write a budget resolution for congress by this legal -- by the legal deadline. and we now get to work on a budget resolution by the legal deadline of april 15th and i look forward to working with my colleagues on that. i want to remind my colleagues they can turn in questions for director donovan but they are due no later than 6:00 today.

and they have to be in writing at the committee clerk's office which is dirkson 624, and then i'm sure that director donovan will respond within seven days. so with no further business before the committee, we stand adjourned. >> thank you. >> thank you.

bernie sanders talked earlier today about his presidential aspirations at the brookings institution, here's part of what he had to say. >> i will ask this question to get it out of the way. are you running for president, and if you are, will the result be closer to the 1971 special election or the 2012 re-election? with a little but of luck, we'll be on -- let me just say this, no great secret, i have given thought to running for president of the united states. at a time when the middle class is disappearing, we have grotesque levels of income and wealth inequality, when climate

change threatens not only this country but the entire planet, when you have a handful of billionaires in the process of buying the united states government and our political system. i think it is pertinent that we have candidates that stand up to the working families of this country who are prepared to take on the big money interests. i am giving serious thought to do that. don't tell my wife that, she doesn't necessarily agree. >> tell her to turn off the tv right now. >> when you take on the billionaire class, it ain't easy if i do something, i want to do it well, and it's important not just for my ego that i do it well it's important for millions of people who share the same set of beliefs i hold. to do it well, we would have to put together the strongest grassroots movement in the modern history of this country.

when millions of people are saying, you know what? enough is enough. we are going to take on the billionaire class. we are going to have a government that starts working for working families rather than just the top 1%. to be honest with you, i am going around the country. talking to a lot of people. there is a lot of sentiment that enough is enough. that we need fundamental changes, that the establishment, whether it is the economic establishment, the political establishment, or the media establishment, is failing the american people. the gut feeling that i'm going to have to -- the decision i'm going to have to reach is whether there is that willingness to stand up and fight that. if there's not, i don't want to run -- i want to run to win. in terms of money, that's a whole other story. i'm just thinking the other day, this is how absurd the situation is. you had a candidate, me or anybody else, who really reached out and generated a lot of excitement. you had 2 million people say, you know what, we're going to

put $100 into the campaign and by the way, in my senate race, you know what my average contribution was, $45. you had 2 million people putting in $100, that's $200 million, that's 20% of what the koch brothers themselves are prepared to spend. can you take that on? maybe it's over. maybe they have bought the united states government. maybe there is no turning back, maybe we've gone over the edge. i don't know, i truly hope not. last on that issue when candidates run for president. they often have two objectives, the first objective is to win nomination in the election but there have been plenty of candidates in our history who have run to advance an agenda, even when they didn't win. i would like you to -- obviously you had to have thought about both sides of this equation, if i run and win, i run and win.

if i run and lose, how can i have an effect on the agenda of the winning candidate which at this point under democratic side we assume would be hillary clinton. without hurting our chances against the republicans, can you sort of analyze the politics? and i think the politics really matter, because you're really trying to advance an agenda, not simply win an election. >> if i do this and people have to appreciate how difficult a decision that is if i make that decision, i would be running to win. but having said that let me also tell you something about myself. you are looking at a candidate who ran four times for mayor. eight times for the house and eight times for the senate. do you know how many negative ads i've run during that period? zero. never ran a negative ad in my life. they disgust me, and in my opinion they don't work. if i run, and if secretary

clinton runs, what i would hope would happen, is that we would have a real serious -- this is a woman i respect clearly a very intelligent person, who i think is interested in issues, by the way. and i think we would have a debate about how you rebuild a crumbling middle class, a debate about how you reverse climate change. a debate about foreign policy and the wisdom in the war in iraq. a debate about trade policy a debate about wall street. and that would be, i think good for the american people to be honest with you, it is not my style to trash people. it is not my style to run ugly negative ads. never have never will. >> would you register as a democrat? >> it's a decision i have yet to make. i go around the country, there are a lot of people i say, look, the republican party democratic party, they are the same you have to start outside of the two party system.

a lot of people feel that way. other people then say, well you have to run -- you've been in the democratic caucus since i've been in congress. and if you want to go where the action is, and you want to be in the debates you want to get media attention, and so forth have you to run. that's the issue i'm talking to a lot of people about. >> you can see all of this event tonight at 9:05 on c-span. also see all of our road to the white house coverage any time on our video library, c-span.org. february is black history month, and the c-span bus is on the road visiting the top historically black colleges and universities to speak with their faculty and discuss public policy issues and highlight their role in america's education system. this tuesday during washington journal, we'll be at fisk university in nashville, followed by morehouse college and spellman college in atlanta.

with live coverage of the u.s. house on c-span and congress on c-span 2, here on c-span three we show you the most relevant public affairs events. on weekends, c-span3 is the home to american history tv. the civil war's 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. american artifacts to discover what artifacts reveal about america's past. history buk shelf with the best known american history writers. the president dernscy looking at the policies and legacies of the k3457bder in chief. our new series, real america, features archival government and educational films from the 1930s through '70s, c-span 3, watch us in hd like us on facebook and follow us on twitter.

senator tim scott of south carolina hosted a forum earlier today in capitol hill. the event focused on the importance of school choice and educational opportunities for parents and children. the first panel of the day, features louisiana governor bobby jindal, and republican conference chair of washington state. it runs 50 minutes. >> i'm certainly very excited about the issue of school choice, and i look around the audience and see so many fantastic young folks in the audience, 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. >> 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 carolinaen contingency they understand how this works. i have to get you young folks warmed up in here. anyway, ready to go back to my prepared remarks.

while i'm incredibly excited about school choice and the opportunity to hear from amazing panelist s panelists, everyone in the country should know one of the leading voices on school choice in the governor of louisiana, bobby jindal. i'm also reminded unfortunately of some challenging circumstances. kathy rogers will have to leave early this morning to attend the funeral, a congressman who was elected from mississippi, when i was first elected to congress. if you don't mind, we'll have about a five second moment of silence for congressman nunnally's family. >> 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 i'd like to give a shoutout to lizzie simmons, my -- [ applause ] >> lizdy is my l.a. for education issues. she's passionate about school choice. she's worked tirelessly to make sure today is as successful as it can be and so i would love to once again acknowledge lizzie, you see a lot of my staff around there put a lot of time into making sure today is as significant as possible. i'd 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 effort to make sure that today happens. we're going to hear from amazing

speakers beyond this panel. we're going to have senator lamar alexander, we're going to have educators like steve perry rick hess at aei and dr. heart stock to phone to action as well. here's what i want you to walk away with 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. we want to make sure we focus our attention to make 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 president over here to the left understands the amen. thank you. let my make it crystal clear we must act now on the issue of educational choice. this is not an issue that we can 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. we cannot separate the future success of this nation from your success. and we have an amazing -- >> 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 speakers. to hear from. if you'll join me as we start our first panel. >> moderator, 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 policy studies, the american enterprise institute. it's a pleasure to be with you today, i want to thank and congratulate senator scott and the leadership he's brought to our issue, and challenging our nation to do better when it comes to educating our kids. as the senator said, we have some terrific folks for you. sitting next to senator scott we have governor jindal under governor jindal's leadership, louisiana has been transformed he's cut red tape, slimmed the size of government, reduced 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 exports and a higher gdp than at any time in its history. sitting next to the governor, we have larry grooms he was elected in 1997, represents

south carolina's 30th district which encompasses parts of berkeley and charleston counties. the joint transportation review committee. as well as serving on a number of other committees, including education tireless advocate for school choice in south carolina he lives on daniel island with his wife carol and their three sons. our fourth member of the panel this morning is kathy mcmorris rogers, 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 rogers is co chair of both the military family and the down syndrome caucuses. she's married to brian rogers 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. i'd love to have you talk for a moment about why school choice is something in particular that resonates with you? >> it resonates with me both as a policy maker as someone who has the great honor to represent the people of eastern washington here on capitol hill. as a mom i have three kids, one that has down syndrome, special needs. 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 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. 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 had known this issue as a mom. and it has only reinforced my belief in the importance of these choices and having the opportunities for every child. my oldest cole was born with down 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 find -- i can go visit schools and figure out,

okay, this is going to be the school where cole has the best opportunity to reach his full potential. i'm happy to say right now he's in a charter school, he's doing exceptional, he's in second grade, he's reading learning his math, and he's contributing already in ways that were totally unimaginable when he was first born. [ applause ] >> governor jindal -- >> i used to teach high school in baton rouge, louisiana years ago. i'm familiar with the troubled legacy and education. i'm curious if you can talk about some of the key pieces and the role that school choice has played in pushing that forward. >> thank you very much. thank you very much, i want to thank the senator for having us, for hosting us. i was so impressed, one of the 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 want you to -- just for emphasis, the circumstances of a child's birth shouldn't determine their outcomes as an adult. unfortly, that's happening too often in our country. if we allowed that to happen, i wouldn't be here today. my dad's one of nine, just like kathy. he's the only one that got past the fifth grade in his family. none of his older brothers sisters, none of his younger brothers or sisters ever got an education. now, to you students the reason i know this, is i heard this story every single day growing up. i don't know if your parents were like that, telling you how tough it was growing up.

if he hadn't gotten an education, i wouldn't be high. i remember when you were kathy mcmorris, before you got married and became a mom. congratulations on in louisiana we have done several things. the single most important i'm proud that we have increased the number of charter schools that we have changed the way we evaluate our eachteachers. and 100% of the parents get to decide where our children go to school. we have doubled the percentage of kid filing. it is now down to 4%. there is more work to be done, but it shows you you don't have a wait a long time to make dramatic improvements. the reason this is so important, look at the little boys and girls in this room they only

have one chance to grow up. i invite anyone that opposes school choice or educational reform why they should wait. of all of those laws and changes, the single most important thing we did -- you can give letter grades you can lift the charter school cap, allow good operators to have more than one school otherwisedauthorized at a time. you can have online schools. 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. i'm here to tell you that charter schools are great but not every child should billion in a charter school. maybe a child will be do better in a different school. a dual enrollment program. maybe a catholic school, and

independent school. the point is empower parents. today we have that but only for the wealthy. if you're wealthy you can move to a neighborhood with great schools. you can save your money and send your child to a great private school. if you don't have the resources you're liking to be trapped. education should help america be an aspirational society. also to help us grow our economy, and helping us produce and engage with responsible citizens. you will hear on a later panel wbl she is a former state senator. and for her it was not a partisan politics. when she went to the mic and said the kids that will bent are the ones i was elected to remit. so to answer your question, there has been dozens of laws and i'm proud of all of them. the single most important thing

we did was let the dollar follow the kids to empower ever parent to make the choice that makes the best sense for their child. i want to thank afc and the freedom foundation. they were great partners as we fought to make that happen in louisiana. senator grooms we would like to hear about your struggles with the problem and your path pushing for school choice. >> thank you for bringing us all here together. 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 as any people that have ever been on this planet, and you have to ask yourself why. it is because we're the freest people. we value freedom. we vam freedom.

we will die to defend freedom we employ freedom in every as aspect of freedom in our lives. jefferson defines freedom as having choices. it's because of these choices we have achieved more than any peoples that have come before us. for some reason we don't think that those choices should extend to parents when it comes to their child's education. it is mind boggling. i don't get it. we see how freedom has created such wealthy such prosperity. show freedom has allowed us to become an exceptional nation. we need an exceptional public school system. we need an exceptional private school system, and a delivery

systems. freedom only works every time. choice matters. choice is freedom. you will root out what doesn't work, and then you will elevate what does work. and when it comes to education, who loves the children more? the government? or the parents? who has the child east best -- child's best interest at heart. the school board or the children and parent? i know what would work better for my children they any school board or secretary of education would. i want to be able to offer my children, and the children of south carolina, and the children of the nation have choices in their education. when we allow choices.

when we give parents choices, we give them freedom. through freedom we have excellent. we will ul mainwill maintain excellence in our nation. >> senator scott, i heard you talk occasionally about how school passion because a choice of yours. i thought it might be interesting if you want today share a little built of that participant of your biography. >> certainly, let me say that i know congressman morris-rogers may have to leave because she is attending the funeral -- >> we'll give her as much time to speak as possible. i will tell you that i came to the issue of school choice honesty.

my mother raised me by herself working 16 hours a day, doing all she could and i was not doing that well. i went to four different elementary schools because when you're living in poverty, you may have to move a little built, and when you move you change schools. so for me my elementary years were about hopping from school to school to school. so why i like what governor jindal said is letting the resources follow the child is so important because if you're like me growing up in poverty, you can't fund the right school if the kid keeps moving. allowing the resources to go with the kid is important. because of that challenging beginning, when i was a freshman in high school and i was flunking 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 to only fail civics. and then i arrived in the senate, and i realized maybe i'm not the only one that failed civics. i might not be by myself after all, and then i failed spanish and english. now, i know it is tough, you can't believe i'm on the panel, right? i understand i understand. when you fail spanish and english. they don't call you bilingual because you can't speak any language. but that experience helped to instruct me and inform me about the power of education. that is truly the power of

freedom. and so as a legislature, i have dedicated the vast majority of my agenda to setting captives free making sure that every child everywhere has a chance to succeed. for me it was easy to come to the conclusion that without choices, without options, without flexibility parents like mine, and parents like stacey 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 still part of my dna. [ applause ] congresswoman, right now capitol hill is wrestling with no child

left behind that was passed back in 2001 which governs the biggest share of dollars for k through 12 education. most of it is driving by states and communities so there is a question of how much should the government be involved and i'm wondering how that comes to the school choice conversation. what role should the government play or is that a state and local conversation? >> i'm someone that believes that the best decisions for education are always going to come at the local level. and it really is with local school boards parents, in communities. those are where the best decisions are going to come. the reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act welcome at one time turned no child left behind is up for reauthorization. it is overdue. and 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 will be done in a way that is empowering local communities to make those decisions. and as you mentioned, okay there is a limited role for the federal government. there is some low income dollars that the federal government has that we prioritize that we send to the states. in our reauthorization we want those dollars to fall to the student and we give the states the option to allow those dollars to follow students, for example. we encourage an expansion of charter schools. what the federal government has done so far is we want more charter schools in america, but this time it is giving more tools to allow those charter schools to be improved. to allow for things -- really focusing on those charter schools that have proven themselves to be successful, and lifting them up at models.

also perhaps allowing for those that want a weighted lottery to be able to do so, and to focus on poverty issues and nose with disabilities and allow more options there. we also want to hold charter schools accountable and ensure those not performing well are held accountable. it is very empowering local communities and local school boards to make those decisions. the other issue i might put on the table is that i'm very excited about encouraging schools to look more at blended learning. and i just introduced some legislation along with senator rubio and senator hatch that is promoting this blended learning which is a generation of focusing on individualized education. so that we know in realtime how each student is doing day by day, empowering the teachers the schools that i have visited,

i visited one, and it is a tough neighborhood in washington dc, but they embraced blended learning and the teachers were just really engaged and inspired about coming to work every day, the students were anxious to learn, and 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. this school in anicostia had seen tremendous growth. it comes down to empowering local communities, local school boards giving them more choices and letting them decide what is best for the kids in that community so they can reach their full potential. >> congresswoman, i would love to hear you just a bit further on this point, you talk, for instance about charter accountability. they can open from an

authorizer, and part of that deal is they can shut down if they're not serving children well been particularly given your own experience recent research by patrick wolf of arkansas found parents don't put a high premium on test scores, and it just doesn't show up i'm curious in your own mind, if you look at charter school accountability and if schooling are serving kids well. how is that student achiefment, assessments, and however is it about something else? >> i think it is important that we're looking at how parents and school boards are making sure they have the information so they can make the best decision possible. sometimes transparency for what is really happening in a school can be difficult to get. i think it goes beyond a test

score itself. that is one measurement. there is other issues that i think need to be taken into consideration. that ultimately it is about transparency so that parents can be involved in making that decision, and that the administration of that school will know what is really going on, and if the children are getting the education they need. >> senator? >> i just want to piggy back on what cathy was talking about there. one of the things that i realized through the dc opportunity scholarship was the level of parental satisfaction was over 90%. when you think about why that is part of it is because of the environment that their children are in. it encouraging each child's own potential. and when you factor in on top of

the actual academic progress made by a student, i think 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. the teachers are loving and invested. i think that is why it is so important for a program that goes beyond simple academic achievement. >> governor, you have been wrestling with this on the ground. i'm curious how you ensure schools of choice are good schools without taking away the ability of parents. >> a couple things, you talk about charter schools, i think charter schools, one of the

things that make them so different, not only do they have flexibility flexibility, but they have to earn their students. and the reality is that when charter schools are not doing well they will not enroll their students in those charter schools, and if they fail to perform year after year they are shut down. that is important because there is accountability there and that doesn't happen nearly as often with traditional public schools. when it comes to transparency and parental information i think cathy is exactly right. you have to provide information to parents. i have met with moms in particular that told me this is the first time that children go to charter schools or they say this is the first time my child is wearing a uniform, this is the first time i feel my child is safe, this is the first time

my child brought home homework. there is a number of reasons or factors. i want to talk quickly about this issue of tests. the reason we have tests, i think it was a rightful response that many schools especially those serving low income minority students were not doing a good job. i think there was a good impulse. i think we have become so obsessed with tests, they they were pretesting, prepretesting, and it feels like all your doing is testing not learning, and we crowded out arts and social stupid studies. i think there is two things you do with tests, we need to benchmark the test to there is a greater choices, but there are many great assessments. why not have a benchmark and we

have done this before where people can take different tests and you can compare hour they doing acress different states and countries. when schools have done a good job, they can say with we wave these -- waive these tests? if we're showing a year's worth of work in a year's time, we should be held to the same micro management so you can have accountability. for the federal government's role, i'm so proud of the senator, he has so many great pieces of legislature. they make those dollars more affordable. we call it backpack funding. so many times legislatures here will vote for funding for kids that may want a better education, or they have social needs, and those funds don't go

there. the dollars that we vote for the kids don't benefit those. i hope they will reduce the role of of the department of education. they should be involved in sieve rights, transparenty and that is about it everything else should be done at the state and local level. i won't start a whole new topic, but i think that means you need to get rid of common core so i won't even begunin that. >> when we talk about school choice, we talk about families trapped in schools that are not working for children, or if school choice is a mechanism for helping all families educate their children better. for instance you want to know that 70% of the nation's

families give their children's school an a or b. it is about 30% of families that are frustrated i'm curious if this is something more universal. >> it is for everyone. it works every time, and if my child is at what many would consider a great public school, then if he is not learning, it is not helping him. and if they want to go where else, i hear from the school district that you have to give us more money. that is the problem. the $12,500 we spend, that is not enough we need more we

appropriate the money. the s.a.t. scores are bad the mom knows the children is not learning to read and they're still stuck there. there is basically no choice. they're at a school that is failing. mom knows it and the child is not getting an opportunity that she wants her child to have. we give that child an opportunity and he goes somewhere else. he may drive 50 miles to the nearest town if we allow choice. some choice is better than no choice. the more choice, the greater the freedom, the greater the freedom, the greater the quality of education, the more exceptional our nation becomes. if you are given choices you have freedom to work. the schools losing students, if they -- the poor performing

schools do better when we're competing for dollars, for the backpack funding you will do what is necessary to grow your school and opportunities. school choice is for everyone, not just for those in bad schools. not just for those that have really good schools. if your school is not working, it's not working and you need another choice. >> senator, how do you respond to those that say look, i hear what you're saying about freedom, but it feels like charter schooling is an attack. it feels like you're trying to dismantle something that is important to america. >> both of you all. we have too many senators. >> i introduced a school choice legislation in our state back in

1998 and i hear from some of my good friends, what are you trying to do? are you trying to destroy public education? what a horrible statement, no one wants to destroy public education, we just want to make sure opportunities are available for every child. we have examples we can see where school choice programs have worked. every change that we made in our state creating the legislation, you're destroying the legislation, wow it worked. we were not creating them fast enough we we have more charter schools. we went in and creates our first

choice program that involved the private sector. every time we have been able to expand choices in our state, we have proven that it works. and when parents make that choice, they're empowered to make that choice all schools perform better. there are some with money, and they never want to give it up. those with power and money never give it up voluntarily. i thank those here today those listening and understanding that freedom works let's fight for it. >> senator scott, how do you respond to those same kind of concerns. >> there is no doubt that education is improving in a large part of the improvement we have seen. it has come because of the competition and the education

spags. 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 schools online schools, virtual schools 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. indeed the most powerful tool that the parent has is choice. i say let us not religate that choice. whatever the parent says works for her very often it is a single mom working two shifts like mine was, let's give her the peace of mind to choose the

quality of education in a he determines is best for her child. i think that competition will drive better results in the local neighborhood school. when that happens kids get a far better education i think there are expectations in life that skyrocket and we all benefit from that. >> so let us shift gears a bit. governor, you have been successful as pushing the school district in louisiana, but you pushed choice, you pushes statewide school vowuchers. could you talk about how these options are different and about the practical challenges in the state. >> i could not agree with the senators more.

it is about choice and freedom. for example, course choice, and i think this is one of the ways of the future. we said not only do we want the dollars to follow the child, and we heard about the charter schools, and the statewide school choice, but it involves unpacking those dollars so it may mean that you start your day at a public school. it may be that you would benefit by taking an online course. so you get an education and a certification or a skill to help you open the workforce some day. we say not only does the dollar follow the student but it is divisible so private and other course providers, it could be an online provider, it could be a private employer, could also offer courses during the school day. you can earn academic credit, and we can pay for it with the

dollars allots for that student's education. when we look at that program, charter schools we have over 90,000 students. students that are in public schools in total. the point is that this should not be often times choices started. and it makes sense because people are mostly concerned about kids trapped in failing schools that starts with low income families. i believe like the senators have both said, it needs to be for every child and everyone parent and this is a fundamental and philosophical question. if you remember one thing about this whole debate, all of the acronyms. there are scholarship programs, tax rebate programs. it can get confusing. it really boils down to this one essential question. do you trust moms, and you're

right it is usually moms do you trust moms to make the best decisions for their kids. or do you think bureaucrats in washington dc or somewhere else that know the needs of those kids better. we ask how we got this done. it is contentious because the forces of the status quote don't need a change. we have one union leader in louisiana that knows that parents, especially poor parents, don't have a clue when it comes to making educational choices for their kids. we know the needs of our kids better than the bureaucrats. what made the difference, i believe in louisiana, it is fine for us to speak about this. the group we need to thank for being here are the students and the parents that let them come here. what really made the difference in baton rouge is when moms show up to the capitol.

it is too often an asimilar -- uneven fight. it got to be so bad that when there were protests in front of the capital i would tell my kids those are just parades for daddy. more powerful than special interests are the moms showing up saying this is not political for me. it is not a partisan issue for me. it doesn't matter if i'm democratic or republican. this about my little girl or my little boy. there is no more eloquent speaker for school senator, it is the kids and the parents. what made the difference in louisiana was getting families and employers involved. we said if this doesn't change you will not have the skilled workforce. there is a lot of studies about

how education can improve your earning potential. about how a better education can reduce the chances a teenager will become pregnant. one study over the weekend shows that america could had trillions of dollars for the economy. if we caught up with kancanada or other countries when it came to educating our kids. education, and that is great i'm all for it for those reasons. but education, the reason we provide public education in our country. the reason that education so so important in the first place is we're a self governing republic. if you want informed citizens, so help make the country so great, the reason historically this country started investing in public education was to make sure we could be a self governing public. so this is really about teaching the next generation of citizens to endure -- ensure that this

republic endures. it is the quality of the country that you want to leave to our children. i want to thank you for -- i know that you hate missing a school day, that was a big sacrifice sacrifice, but thank you for coming up here and thank your parents for caring about your education. senator scott you have tackled this issue in the state legislature, at the state level and south carolina. you spent a little time now in washington wrestling this issue. for assembling coalitions and bringing people together to do the things that you're all talking about, i wonder if you have insights about what you can share with folks about what you seen along the way. >> the more you talk about choice the more people start paying attention. one of the things we have to have happen throughout the

country is a grass roots conversation about what is happening to our kids today. if we have that conversation, you will see the coalitions, and the parents are engaged at the grass roots level. you find out of those conversations the speed germ germinates more organizations and interest and desire. one of the most recent signs is a number of professional athletes starting charter schools. entertainers that are coming out on behalf of school choice. because when you think aboutensingaboutens ing -- about what is next, you have

to answer the question. we have to educate who is present today. that conversation around the country starts at the grass roots level. we have a number of partners who have done a fabulous job of providing us with good data and good information to encourage the conversation to go to the next level. thank you. [ applause ] >> if you will all join me in thanking the panel, it has been a terrific start to the day. we're now going to break for a few minutes and reconvene at 11:00.

independent senator bernie sanders talked about why he will not attend benjamin netanyahu's upcoming address to congress. here is a look. >> senator, i would like to ask you your opinion on the speech that prime minister net ya hue is -- netanyahu is planning to give to congress and are you considering boycotting it. >> we argue that the president was not even consulted. that is wrong. it is not a good thing. >> are you thinking of not going? >> i'm not thinking of not going -- i'm not thinking about not going, i'm not going. >> how many of your colleagues -- >> you're sounding like the media, you want me to speculate, i don't know. >> i am the media.

>> that's right. president obama also talked about prime minister netanyahu's visit during today's use conference with chancellor angela merkel. >> we have a practice of not meeting with leaders right before their elections, two weeks before their elections. as much as i love angela if she was two weeks from an election she would not have received an invitation from the white house and i suspect she would not have asked for one. so -- so this is just some of this just has to do with how we do business. i think it is important for us

to maintain these protocols because the u.s. israeli relationship is not about a particular party. this is not a relationship founded on an affinity between the democrat and the republican party. this is the u.s.-israeli relationship. it extends beyond parties and deals with the unbreakable bond that we feel. and the values that we have. the way to ensure that is to make sure that it it did not get clouded with what could be perceived as partisan politics. that is a potential perception, and that is something that we have to guard against. i don't want to be coy, the

prime minister and i have a very real difference around iran sanctions. i have been very clear, and angela, david cameron agrees with me, that it does not make sense to sour the negotiations a monday or two before they are completed. we should play that out if in fact we can get a deal that we should embrace that. if we can't get a deal, we'll have to make a set of decisions. and i will be the first to work with them to apply even stronger measures against require, -- as the president of the united states, i'm looking at what the

options are if we don't get a diplomatic resolution. from the perspective of the u.s. interest, it is far better if we can get a diplomatic rez hugssolutionresolution. it is separate and apart from him comes to washington. >> if you missed any of the news conference, you can see it in it's entirety on our companion network. >> tonight on the communicators special council on the fcc on net neutrality including

regulating the is internet like utility. >> i don't know who the next fcc chairman is, they may try to throw out this regime i don't by the next chairman argument because the rules are only as good as the guy or gal on the eighth floor enforcing them. we have to do our best to set up a infrastructure that will protect consumers,. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span 2. february is black history month and the c-span bus is on the road visiting the top historically black colleges and universities. this tuesday during washington

journal, we'll be at this university in nashville followed by morehouse college. well return now to senator tim scott's day long academic forum. it looks at perspectives of private, public and charter school systems. >> welcome to the stronger panel, that is a hard panel to follow, the first one. we heard great stories and great information. i'm honored to be here with senator scott. i'm exhitted about this panel for three reasons today.

one, it features represents. two, it will focus on the transformative power of educational options at the community level for individuals and the community. and three, frankly it is a panel full of gifted people that have been there and done that. people who worked in communities and found your change. one of those people are seated right to my right. she is the executive director at the conference of catholic bishops. in her role she is responsible for assisting the bishops in the development, management, and communication of plans and policies for catholic education. she is the go-to person when it comes to catholic education. it is not a surprise given she was a teacher and administrator.

we're also joined by dr. steve perry. dr. steve perry is the founder and ceo of one of the top public schools in the country. capitol prep which has mostly low income families graduates 100% of their children and has done so every year since conviction. that alone is worth an applause. dr. perry is a regular contributor. a best selling author, a tv host, and soon as you will hear him talk, you will see him be one of the most passionate voices for education reform and for real change in the community.

next is nina reese who i had the honor of knowing for almost 20 years now. she is the president and ceo of the national reliance for public charter schools. she has 20 years of experience in d.c. most recently is the senior vice president, which is an amazing in helping kids. she also served as the fist assistant assistant deputy secretary. they every had a secretary for innovation and change before and nina was the first. that was, of course, right after she was vice president dick cheney's deputy assistant so nina has great experience. and then the board chair for the

options, and the neward charter school funding. previously she served as the executive director for the new york program, senior advisor for the charter school policy for new aheaders for new schools, and executive director for charter schools for the new york city department of education. we're going to do the same thing that rick did. on your seats is the social media information. please get involved. at the end of the last panel, we need to have a grass roots education about what is happening to our children today. what is happening to our kids and families, how bad is it? >> what is happening, thank you senator cannot and all of the folks who assembled here this

morning about the conversation that is most important which is education. and for whom opportunity has not been there. what is happening is the life force of people is being robbed from them and given to the employees of the status quo. we don't have a school system that is put in place to help our children. we have a school system that is kept in place to ensure that the grown people keep their jobs. i have seen too many beautiful children like those here from richard wright and chavez who, if you had the opportunity to talk to, they would tell you the struggles. they are at good schools, choice schools and their lives are being changed every single day.

we continue tonight to pour good children into bad schools. that is not the biggest challenge for us. it is our advocates who are week and unwilling to fight. they're too apologetic. they have an issue with called a failed school a failed school. if we don't hold our allies accountable, we will not be able to get out of the hole that is dug for us. i'm sorry, you have me warmed up, brother. >> that was the intention. >> sister mary please pray for me. that's why they sat me next to her so she can put her hand on me. >> so, you're part of the catholic school sector, why

shouldn't we just have one sector, why should we have competition as a bad thing? or is it a good thing? >> i don't know if this is on -- yes, thank you. i think charters have paised the way for options for parents that are very important. in the catholic community we education 1.9 students in the catholic schools. but there are many in the public sector. we're as interested in the cools as we are in catholic schools. parental choice is part of our dna. we exist because we want to give parents the right and the choice to choose catholic schools. we are supportive of it 100% from the vantage point of continuing to do that. we're also interested in

parental choice to piggy bag off of dr. perry. we're very concerned about children. . the hope of our society is in this room right now. these are the kids that we have and through catholic schools we offer hope through school and education. it is an act of hope. we're making a statement to the kids out there that we care a great deal out there by giving parents the opportunity to has the best school that matters to them. that is why we're interesting in school choice. >> nina? >> thank you. i want to thank senator scott for hosting this great event. when ever you have a senator interested in this topic, and able to attract so many individuals both from congress and from the field to an event

like this we greatly appreciate it. in terms of why school choice and why charter schools, by way of background i'm extremely proud that we have charter school laws now in 42 states and here in washington dc. we're serving a little more than 7.2 million students around the country. and they're so important because they're serving the needs of low income families right where they are. upper income families when they want to make a choice they can move and go to a school district, or they can enroll their children to a private school. we don't have enough school budget programs to meet the needs of low income families. we have such a bustling school choice movement that close to 50% of the students are

attending charter schools. and the quality has also dramatically improved overtime. i think it empowers families and i'm a firm believer of charter schools of the traditional system and making sure they're transferring them as much as possible so the overall system is improved at the end of the day. >> can i jump in real quick to tell my story? it is mache ashton. i have an identical twin sister. we failed kindergarten in the traditional public school and then my parents put us in a catholic school and that made all of the difference. i believe that parental choice

needs to be well spread. if you have resources, you do two things, you mauve to a community where traditional public schools are great, or you put your child into a private school. i believe they deserve that same access to quality education. it should be a right whether you're in washington dc, you deserve access to a quality education. so -- [ applause ] >> i think it is worth noting that i'm a school choice advocate. raggedy schools are raggedy no matter the guessdesignation. there are some that need to be shut down tonight just because a charter school struggles doesn't mean charter schools struggle.

we need to get past charter or traditional, private or public. we need to get down to what education is about when is providing instruction to children so you can meet them where they are and take them to where they need to be. we spend too much time having the conversation about the ends of the conversation. the ends of the issue. that is not what this is about. it is what is essential, which are the children. i know we have forgotten along the way that education was supposed to be about children but it is. it's not a jobs program. it's not a tenure kerks. people talk about the traditional schools need more resources -- for what? to do what? if i give you more money, are you going to be worse or better? because it is not the issue of money, the majority of charter schools and catholic schools --

if money was the issue, the best place to send a child would be to prison. that is where we spend more per pupil than anything. if the issue was money, we would have those parts of the communication. just because you have a certification that says you should be a teacher doesn't mean you should. this is a calling. and just because somebody called doesn't mean you have been called. we have been trying to find a way to claw our way out of poverty in education for quite some time if for a long time the catholic schools were there for us. you see what is interesting is a

baptist will go to a catholic school just to get out of the raggedy school at the end of their street. they have to wait until they get out of church sometimes, but when they get our customerst they're going to go to school. they will lie about a child's address, and they will lie about their race. jaqeem will be a white kid if necessary to get him out of the circumstance that is ruining his life. you cannot under any circumstances they a school is good for a child because it is

close to their house. people say they're proliberals because they're pro choice but not pro-choice on how a child decides where to go to school. the greatest social program of all time is education. but that is not what they want. what they want to do is maintain the status quo. so i submit to you that if you're not willing to fight then get out of the way because there is a fight going on. she is praying. she is praying for me as we speak. >> so st. john mary, he talked about it being a calling, right? so your schools are a calling, what makes your schools unique in the catholic sector and what do you offer that other schools don't? >> in the catholic environment

we offer jesus christ preached in the gospel. and that is the fundamental reality of our schools. but what we believe is that the individual, the human -- we owe them in a n that environment an excellent education that will help them flourish as a hueman being. therefore, all of the things that make up a good education are part of the conversation for our schools. so the teachers community, governance, resources, it is all part of the bigger question that matters to who the children are.

we believe that education has two ends and the church's teaches have been claefr for many years. the flourishing of the person here and now, as a citizen of this world, and their eternal end as a citizen of the world to come. so the mission and the vision of our schools, we try to keep that in our minds because it matters to the children in front of us. that is what makes our schools deferent. [ applause ] . >> i'm going to assume that is the same mission of the charter schools, right? what makes the charter school sector unique? >> it is a diverse community so depending on the state law that allows for the creation of charter schools, they will be very deep. one of the things is grade charter school laws based on their strengths, and it looks at the movement and the quality of

the movement. how innovative is it. and the thing that we base is on is whether as patience for schools

and for organizations or people who don't put students and children's interests first.

>> last six months two schools in indianapolis closed. is there a distinction between the idea that we want accountability based on test scores and performance and yet parents still don't want that school to close? should parents be able to go to poorly performing schools? >> i think it's on us as reformers to really think thoughtfully. i believe low-performing schools should close. but if the students are going to go to worse off schools that's actually not a better choice. so we've got to engage. this panel's about engaging community in the process. we've got to be more transparent about what is quality schools. it's not just test scores. it is family engagement. it is teacher satisfaction. it is accountability on multiple measures. so i would argue that there's not great transparency around what is a quality school and the more we can engage our parents,

stakeholders, and policy makers into a discussion about quality i think the more thoughtful we can be about closing schools and providing students and families better options. >> sister john mary when she looks at me i have to say yeah. >> and i agree with the vantage point that we use a phrase principal subsidiarity. the local level in the catholic school the community should be vested in that -- in that environment and that means parents. it means administrators. it means the pastor the bishop. it means a vested nessness. the other point i think is really important is in doing so that relationship between the school and the family is a partnership. it's not just a consumer experience. it's an actual partnership where the school takes on the obligation to educate that child on behalf of the parent, in loco

parentis. and i think that element of relationship related to education is extremely important and may be sometimes missing in this conversation. that the parents have an obligation to communicate well with the school and the school vice versa. and it's not just one way. so when we talk about accountability accountability i think is a relationship accountability, not necessarily just a gavel accountability. so i think that's a very important part of a good school. >> can i take, that robert, real quick? so if the charter school movement were to operate the same way as a traditional system operates where after years of poor performance it remains -- it keeps its doors open we would just be no different from the other system that we're trying to save students from. so it's extremely important that we're firm on accountability and advocate for closure when a school is continuously failing. having said, that the reason why these families are not reacting, it could perhaps be because the schools from which they escaped

are not as safe or as high quality as the school that they're currently sending their children to. so as reformers i think it's extremely important for us to come up with sensible options whether it's through giving the governance of that charter to another school and really explaining to families why is it that they would be better off in another school in that neighborhood. making sure that other options are available is extremely important to us. just one last thing as a parent myself, we often think of this as something that impacts low-income families. but as a parent who is exercising choice right now it is extremely confusing to really understand if a school is a high-quality school and whether it is spending your taxpayer dollars effectively to raise student achievement. it's extremely opaque. so from a public policy standpoint the more information is out in the public domain whether it's academics or other quality measures, it would just be better for our nation as a whole to understand what makes a

quality school and what types of schools are likely to put you on a path to success in college and later in life. [ applause ] >> i'm pro vouchers. 100% pro vouchers. [ applause ] and most people are pro vouchers. they just get caught up in the politics of what the words have come to mean in the political theater that is education. if you're pro section 8 -- some of y'all might be using it. if you're pro food stamps, or the most recent iteration thereof. if you're pro student financial aid. if you're pro medicaid. if you're pro medicare. you're pro vouchers. you are for public money being used for public or private goods or services.

further, we don't have a problem with sending brigham young university, xavier university, notre dame, boston college, or any of the other jesuit schools, federal student financial aid. we don't have a problem with that. well see, that's part of the thing that we do to educate at the next level. but then you hear people saying they're against prek to 12 vouchers because they could go to a catholic school. isn't notre dame a catholic school? so why would you be okay with notre dame the university receiving a voucher but not notre dame high school or notre dame elementary school receiving a voucher? it's because notre dame university, or the university of notre dame doesn't have as good a lobbying group as the pre-k to 12 folks do. we need to do a better job of

making it plain to the community what's really what. too much of the education conversation is held in the minds and mouths of wonky politicos. love you guys and your khaki pants and your blue blazers. love you. but you don't make sense to the rest of the world. your little echo chamber conversations don't mean anything to regular people. people don't get you. sow wonder why people don't sign on to what you're talking about. it's because you're talking over people's heads. you don't respect the humanity of the people you're supposed to be supporting. because if you did you would take the time to make sure they understood what you said. you would have them ask you questions. you would teach them. too much of the conversation goes over the heads of our community, and as a result they just sit there i don't understand what they're talking about. so making it plain is this. every child has a right to go to a good school.

that's period. and we've found the federal government through the courts has found every single time it's been brought before them that if you put children from one community in a disadvantaged circumstance because of education then that is inherently wrong. that's bad. so they need to be given choice. we need to fight to make sure our community understands that if they got a scholarship like they're trying to fight for for their child who can barely play basketball but they'll play $1200 to put him in an aau program, if we can explain it very simply a scholarship just like that college scholarship you that want could help your child go to a school whether 2 be from pre-k to 12th grade then they can understand a scholarship. a vouch jer like a scholarship. then you talk about people talking about how they want to save money in public education or education as a whole. you're paying for it twice, not because it's a charter school or because there's a magnet school

but because there's a school you that paid into that the children do not attend. all these children who are here attending charter schools, if their school, their neighborhood school they were supposed to go to receives one dime then you're paying twice for them. i'll say it again. in connecticut for instance, if a child is slated to go -- well, every child is slated to go to a neighborhood school. so my neighborhood school would be snow school. snow school elementary school up the street from me. the one that kept me back in the third grade. my sons don't attend snow school. they attend my school capital prep, which is in hartford. so snow school gets $13,000 per pupil. capital prep gets $12,000 per pupil. we're paying $15,000 -- i mean $25,000 -- that's why third grade didn't work out.