there were some people i talked about, and i think there were 13 scenarios. i do not remember. >> you might think about it a little differently. i will go back, and i went to hemmer this and take a swing with norad. .

>> they actually saw what the vulnerabilities were. they saw that it was asymmetric in the context of the strategies that were used relative to how we were handling ourselves. maybe these assimilations. in my view, it misses the mark. maybe there is a real world activity so that we learn what those are. in the national context, shouldn't we having national receiver that is not simulated which creates that same understanding between the public and private sector. >> so, where damage can truly be done. >> . when one of the military were

games that they decided there were born to put cyber egan, -- going to put cyber in. the disabled the ability of the military to carry out its mission. they had to turn off the cyber thing. that is a big lesson. >> what has defense been doing? >> we have not, in the last two years, we have been observers to some of the department of defense gains. our focus has been getting this program moving forward from an operational standpoint. we expect that with the relationship that we have, we will be able to take our infrastructure and put it into

the department of defense on the national level. we have offered up of. on a daily basis, we are engaged and it may not be the high-profile attacks that people might think, but the infiltration of data is something that is an ongoing effort. so, that is a key part in terms of intellectual capital. some things you cannot just put your finger on and say there it is. that is really what we are trying to put the focus on. well, in fact, take the lessons that we are glean and integrate those into future exercises.

we have this ongoing relationship with companies, now. it is not something that should put together for the exercise and in fact capitalize on something that is in existence. >> i know a big threat that has gotten a lot of attention is the electric grid that was attacked repeatedly. we think about our transportation system. across the board, there are so many areas that are at risk. from what i've heard, they are in worse shape than government, in terms of the network protection because they were not built to be a networked environment. is that the biggest ththreat we face right now? >> the biggest threat we face is an intelligence threat.

as you have heard from brian and from allen, this happens every day. it is irritating to me as you can probably tell, that we spend a lot of money on hypothetical threats. we have a hard time realizing it is a priority. that is our biggest problem. critical infrastructure is a big potential risk. every air force in the world has the plans to blow power stations and bridges and critical infrastructure and now they have added a new weapon set for attacking and that would be cyber weapons. we will probably see some attack against critical infrastructure. it will be destructive. it is a risk that we face in the future.

i do not agree with you 100% the critical infrastructure is worse off. some companies are really secure. some companies are not. we do not have a good way to tell who is and is not secure. we have no idea how they fit together. i actually think that some critical infrastructure companies are in better shape than large parts of the government, but we do not have that norad type view that you can say that in north america could repel this kind of attack. we do not have that yet. >> there is a lot of talk on this topic on the hill. jim, i think you have been there for quite a bit of it. i know there is a lot of talk about self regulation to some degree. there is a lot of organizations that regulate how they handle their security.

is that the right approach? is self regulation a key factor? is that the approach to take for ensuring security across different markets? >> the way i think about this is that the model that we want to take as goldilocks. i will explain why it is a good model. why do european companies do badly? they are overtaxed and overregulated. they do not want to be in the box. at the wrong kinds of regulation are too much regulation and then on the other hand, there is the fate based approach which lets everyone do their own plan. if you want a historical example, you can read a novel called "the stockyards." i have a song from chicago on how you make sausages.

so, you have to hot and 2: goldilocks would tell you to go for the one in the middle. -- so, you have t o hotoo hot ao cold. goldilocks would go for the one in the middle. they should be responsible for air defense. >> absolutely. >> response? >> where i have always been on that issue is back to the shared vulnerability in the sherr opportunity. i do not know how we can get to the goldilocks place because it is not the government by itself.

i am fine with shifting to terms. we can communicate that it is more than security and that i have an interest in your ability to distract. it is protect and defend and reconstitute. there are a set of series of events that i am expecting you to go through. is reassurance. when my power goes off in the house, i trust that there are a certain set of things occurring. those knuckleheads better get the power back on, or my wife will be all over me. to me, this notion of trusting each other to get to the goldilocks place, the two words that need to be used are assurance and trust. to me, when you use the term committee, you get all this privacy in play.

that is not my issue. >> do you have a question? >> thank you first, let me think this panel that does not have the privilege of working for these people, these are some of the most important people helping to drive this dialogue. i should say that we do not always agree on every topic, but we agree on a lot more than we disagree on. there was a time in our nation's history when people did not lock their doors are closed their windows because they did not realize the risk associated with that. over time, people installed alarm systems and build fences and got a great big dogs and the deal lot of things to try to protect the assets to protect their lives. we have not talked about hygiene very much. i think there is empirical data.

this is about not just big companies, but medium size businesses and individual users in this fight that we have every day. i'll be curious as to your thoughts. there is something that needs to happen in the catalytic. what if congress were to pass a law for some change in the federal acquisition regulation spirited given that the united states government is a huge fire. let's big january 1, 2010. the u.s. government would no longer buying the goods or services by any company. the " the wiz. we have a lot of experts that could pick the top five or 10

elements of hygiene that would raise the bar security across the board for everybody. if you want to play, you must sign and certify to the fact that you practice a minimum threshold as part of your process. the would be adopted to the state and local government level. what are your thoughts about that from a policy standpoint. >> the first time he brought that up, if you remember the meeting, the congressman from oranges in florida. i did not know what to do.

it makes a lot of sense, and then it hit me. you're asking the wrong person. the idea is exactly right. the cannot protect himself. he is sold the software and hardware. it sells some software that he will have to protect. the only way he can solve the problem for the small guy is for the federal government to lead by example. i love the idea. you cannot ask grandma to protect your computer.

i hope this procurement. i do not think regulation is the way to get their. it is a voluntary program at the corporate level with companies. it is one that we expect will continue to expand. the other piece that we envisioned when we began this was looking at our acquisition and contract and policy. that has been undertaken.

the acquisition technology and logistics' have this policy. they have been working on this for a good while. in the fall, they expect to put out an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for the defense federal acquisition regulation. it is a mouthful to say. there'll be a dialogue with industry. we will cover how we want to move forward in our contracts. this will be and -- this will be in all contracts. this advance notice is an effort to say that we know we need to have this dialogue and we want

to have it. we are not just want to come out with the guidance and here it is. this is going to be something you can watch when it comes out. i expect that it is an effort on the part of the dod to move forward on the standards of what is exceptional. our regulations today do not have this in there. that causes issues. that is really what dod is doing. this should unfold in the next several months and you will see it. >> i know a lot of this house to do what we have all turned to the supply chain and it seems to

me that industry, that is getting a lot of their products from various locations, it is difficult to determine how the supply chain as. how do you deal with that? is it the industry's responsibility? how do you ensure the supply chain is secure and that the products are coming from a reliable source? >> anyone? >> will draw lots and whoever -- we will draw lots and whoever gets the short straw. >> when you say who should be responsible, you have to make sure you have the ability to do it. there is this xenophobia that that says to build all of the united states. anybody who wants to mess it up

will get somebody to go to work for that company. there is now all solution by making it in the west. that is just silly. when you talk about the structure, there want to look for the chokepoint in the supply chain and do anything it takes a and no plane by the rules. the response will be the most expensive thing we ever do is security and will last as the next 20 or 30 years. we have begun yet. i do not think we have begun yet. >> this is almost back to the basics in terms of response, but on the big issue of communication, you talk about state, local and first response. all of which comes into play.

do we have the ability across the government to communicate -- committed to what we need to? i would ask it differently. i have revealed what i think. i think you can easily find what i will call carvers of expertise within government and with an industry that is able to do that. the larger context is in north american like context we earlier had, as a nation, relative to the technology that existed, but

there's a lot to be done here. it is not a criticism, i just glibly generalize. phase one was a recognition of the technology. for the heck of it, let's say that is the mid-80s to the mid- 90s. in the last 10 years, which started to understand the complexities of those former abilities and opportunities and what you have now is the third component that comes then and it has not yet matured and emerged. that is the next thing to be done in order for us to have the shared communication. >> do we have questions in the audience? in one? now was the time. >> the people that i need to reach out to are doing all these things. could you address the issue as

to increase security, from my perspective it decreases accessibility and how we balance that? >> i would have to flip it. it is hard to do. one year ago, went to a conference that was a fortune 500 company and had a panel like this and these were not see as those -- not csos. they said that they hated those but they've wanted to rid of it but they could not. their most productive employees use those things because they worked it into their business models and because they were making money off it. if they got rid of those things, the companies would be less competitive and some of their younger employees would just leave. so, we are stuck.

we built this thing and we can get a lot of benefit out of it. the real issue is not how you restrict access, the real issue is how do you start building security in other things. people are not want to do it themselves. -- are not going to do it themselves. there's a whole set of things that we need to do. at the short answer is, one of those is not to restrict access. >> i think you fall into the trap that i mentioned earlier in thinking of security as opposed to insurance. when security terrorists come along, but will implement the kinds of things that will keep our people from using the technologies available to them. if you keep it in the broader sense, you should look across a set of opportunities where security is just one of those

technologies. the most effective is communication. those of the people i want to use those technologies. it is not expensive and is not intrusive. for the set of services, security is only one. data integrity is one. if you wake up and have all five of those things on your menu, then you can drive security to the point that it belongs, in this case, not as an inhibitor, but you might say that you want something that the young people are very accustomed to. >> when you talk about that, everybody would need to have a key fob. they're not 85.

the use their cell phone. the use paper lists of kurds. that is a fine second thing. you can do that without costing a lot of money. but i thought you were born to start a different point. there is a fascinating shift taking place. it was just announced. they are starting to pay a lot more for the technical skills that are for the management and writing skills. for the last 12 years, we have been in this compliance economy. the actual prices for people have shifted. i think it reflects the fact that we have been hit so hard. when you go back and look at the

gaza deadbolt did not get hit hard, they cleaned up earlier. when you figure that out, you figure out they had exactly the same tools. the only difference was that the one that found that early had a set of skills that the guys who did not find it did not have. we have not been supporting the people that one of those skills. they say you can always buy the technical skills. china has a competition in every military district in the country. he won a local competition and they put him through a 30 day intensive training and then they put him in the national competition. his team won that. he left a graduate school. he started a small company. the guys to do this work found

them all over the pentagon by december and by the summer of 2006 his team did five of those zero days. other nations have figured out that the weapon for this next generation of warfare is people. it is not a missile. it is the skill of that person and the person that can make authentication easy and convenient so we'll use that happily as a lot smarter. >> you bring up a good point. uni spoke about the lack of a cyber work force. it is more and more difficult for federal government to really attract the cyber workers and get them on board. are they even out there? how we address the work force issue? >> frank had a meeting

yesterday and people of one agency had a striking statement. he said that every one of the contractors would switch to federal employment in a flash if they could. doesn't have to do with the federal employment, it is most of the people who manage them are clueless. there is no point in working for somebody who does not understand the threat and does not understand the technology. if you switch the people and build the man higher -- manpower quickly. >> any other questions? here we go. >> i was just wondering, there were talking about the manpower issue of people switching to federal government. there was a lot of outsourcing

of security. what is the right mix between having people who are dedicated civil servants on one hand versus having security done by contractors and others outside? >> we don't think that there is a right mix, but the technical people have too deeply respected people who manage them. if they do not, it is dysfunctional. if the team that is managing it has the deep respect of the technical people because they have the technical skills, you cannot say that you hire your technical people. those people have to change out or they have to learn the stuff of how the wars are fought so the people who can actually help them will trust them on/off to share information.

they just do not report it. there is no point in telling the government guys because the government guys don't know what to do with it. what's a big issue that has been in the news, and we are running low on time. whether or not the white house should have a more active role in cyber security. i believe the barack obama said pretty quickly that the white house will coordinate that. what is the role the white house and how will that be put into practice? >> i am stuck with that. >> part of the problem is that we have this large, very complex set of issues that involve international relations and standards and trade

negotiations and intelligence and military activity and industrial base and domestic regulation. it is a huge mix. in some places, we're doing better than we used to do. we have improved as a country. 2007 was the most recent all -- low water mark. we do not have a coordinated strategy to deal with these problems. in some areas, we're still not doing anything. that is what the guys on the other side are looking for. if the americans are strong here, i will go to this place where they are asleep at the switch. that is what they do. we do it too, so did not fret too much. >> when the think of pulling this together, they're doing good things. even the state department is doing a better job.

but how deep do you get all these people to work together? who is it that comes up with national strategies? who is it that keeps all the agencies moving in the same direction? the biggest single requirement for a cyber coordinator was the ability to whistle the theme song from rawhide because this is going to be getting of the herd moving. >> so, not operations. people should not be doing operational were brothers for to get cooperation. >> whether or not we need a new agency, to deal with this multifaceted problem is a separate issue. i happen to believe that we do. that clark is a classic example. he thought he should have an operational cell in the white house between 20 and 50 people. but most people do not want to do that sort of approach. in the interim, we will run along with this coordination.

in the long term, we will be driven to some kind of new agency whether it is in the dlp or something else. >> he brought up the coordinator. we have all been waiting and waiting to have that named by the barack obama administration. >> i have a little sympathy for them. they inherited quite a few glasses before in afghanistan and the economy. at the economy is number one for them as it should be. the tackle health care, which i said was a huge strategic problem for the mission that will make us no longer be a leading power if we do not fix it. there is a lot of stuff on their plate. the department of defense and the nsa had begun to move out on

this. we are not sitting still. is that enough? well, so far we have been lucky. will we eventually get caught if we do not change have? yes, but we will definitely get caught. everyone understands that cyber security is a priority, but what they don't understand this is priority number 123. hopefully, we will continue to look out. when the to clean up our act. >> does anybody want to throw out names of who they are expecting to be the cyber czar? does anybody want the job of a cyber czar? assuming that there are no more questions from the audience, i think we can probably give is should -- to give a bit of a

closing statement on what we need to focus on and whether the outlook is grim and if we can have some of the dozen. kim? >> i am the glass is half full guy after all. we're entering the third phase which has the context of the discussion that we did this morning. in my view, this will be led by folks like you that will become the reference accounts that the larger population will use. my hope, today was to take you to the bottom of the iceberg and got to to think about shared opportunities and we finished up talking a little bit about integration so you're not focused on the one near a piece of security. again, thank you for doing what you do for the country. >> so, some of you are in the

federal government. there is a part of her reason for why you come to these meetings. this is hard to get your hands around the drill. i think that the two models that might be the big opportunities for people inside government and more for the contractors are the intersection of what state is doing and what saic is doing. they will win that competition more than anybody else. the fight is not about things you did last year, that people that can prove they can fight insiders bass -- in cyberspace. they figured out how to get

their people skill level of all that makes them a will to fight. if you're a contractor and think about this as organization and strategy, that business is over. the big money is for to be for the people who can bring that to play. for the government people, i think the big opportunity is to follow the state model. you figure out how you can implement the most critical things that blocked the attacks or help you find them. if unable them so it is not a pain in the ass. i think you're the big winners. all they are all doing crazy metrics. focus on what state did and see if you cannot make it better.

i think those are two opportunities. >> the commission is coming out with another report for the president. >> we are struggling with that as we speak i started out talking about 1992. can we even admit that there was nsa in 1992 as a nation, we are slowly moving in a way where in 1992, when i told people i was working on the digital encryption standard, they would not know what that was. everybody understands the issue. that is tremendous progress. it has not percolated throughout the entire nation but the fact that you are here is a good sign. the senate was not interested in cyber. we're seeing good progress. it is for to be a messy and political problem.

maybe our political process has some problems that are very difficult for it. i would put this in that category. moving away from the defender role, this is an opportunity to perform missions better. the main thing that we have to think about is how to take these technologies, whether they are new and existing and enabled them to do their job better. part of that means making it secure. i hope the nation can seize this opportunity. >> talking about the department of defense effort, the intent is to expand that into a full.

this program will only gain more momentum. in addition, there were to work on industry and that will unfold over the next several months. the lessons learned they are 19 of the sectors. we do with the department of home and security every day. those lessons learned can help in terms of working with the other sectors. i think it is a positive environment.

obviously, it keeps our gives us more support as we work with the defense industrial base. >> i want to thank the panelists. we were so fortunate to have yelled join us today. -- to have you will join us today -- to have you all join us today. >> thank you. i think it went well. it was a good discussion.

>> up next on c-span, a four on how to improve student readiness for college and then q&a with frank mankiewicz. >> we, as a nation, with great privilege are embarking on a great debate. i have yet to speak to many americans who think that we cannot do healthcare better of the overriding input that i have received to date is that if we do nothing, if we do nothing, we

as a nation, elderly young men and women rural and urban will suffer greatly. we have seen that. so the great question is, what do we do? how do we build enough consensus so that what occurs, we can all have some buying in. people have been very objection to this document and others have been passed in lee in favor of it, but it has given me great heartache because many people on both sides have said things about this bill that are simply not true. if i had to vote today on this document i would not vote for it. but not for many of the reasons

that you hear about in the mass media. some of those reasons need to be dispelled. there is nothing in this bill about abortion. in fact, federal money is, by federal law, cannot be used for abortions. it is federal law. those who read of this bill and develop great emotions should understand that. there are other things to be concerned about. i got an e- mail about mandatory euthanasia counseling. don't laugh, because it is a very serious issue. how many of these sot e-mail? let me just do something, here.

it's not easy reading. it really is not. it's not easy because it is a law and is written by lawyers and has to be very very precise. of the problem is, i am not sure i want laws that are not very complicated and very carefully written. i want the experts, and i am not a lawyer, to be able to compose documents the will stand the test of a trial by jury, whatever riches. it is incumbent upon me to do my homework to read this. it's supposed to be difficult. it's not supposed to be a walk in the park even though we are in a park. let me just read this one paragraph. dabel get a sip of water from time to time, here.

>> can we ask questions soon? >> in about five minutes. these are the true things that must be debated by. it has been said that this bill became -- contains a mandatory euthanasia counseling. this is what it says. under medicare programs, an explanation by the physician about end of life services, including exit care and hospice and benefits of some services must be made available upon request. that is a big difference. to answer the question of why, we learn that the hard way. hospital administrators and

doctors came in said that this must be in their because we have far too many americans who arrived at a situation where they cannot speak for themselves in medical situations and therefore, the hospital, the doctors and the families are caught into a trap and therefore, upon request, those services should be available. that is a far cry from what i read on the internet. >> as congress continues its summer recess, we would like to hear from you. are you attending a town hall meeting in your committee -- in your community? share your thoughts with us. live coverage of a town hall meeting on health care with jim lohan and howard dean, former chair of the democratic national committee, doctor and former

vermont governor. >> as the debate over health care continues, see spams health-care hub is a key resource elitist tweets, video ads and more. at c-span bought toward -- >> and discussion on how to prepare students for college and careers. we will hear from leaders of speakers. is just over two hours perform we are just so pleased -- >> we are all pleased that the secretary chose to use this

occasion to launch more information about their efforts. he is really focused on doing what works. if we'd anxiously move forward, our kids will not benefit from the american dream. we're going to change the lives a little bit, but in keeping with the first session, we are were to have judy and cindy share with us what is working around the world and what we know about american education. what else do we need to do to see that there doing this without remediation.

it is my pleasure to introduce judy. america's choice and a.c.t. have had a strong partnership for about a year-and-a-half, now. i smile all the time when i see cindy in judy together. they should have known each other years and years ago. they make a perfect partnership. judy has been the last 15 years taking a look at education and just about every organization around the world. in addition to her strong background as ceo of america's choice, she brought a long history of the religious in

education she was a fabulous principal in a couple of places around the country. she likes to talk often. that is exactly opposite from a high school she left in new york. this is a lady who is relentlessly focused on making sure that all of our kids get the education that they need. i have had the pleasure of knowing her for the past four or five years, now. i've had the benefit of getting to know her from an inside view. of those of you who do not spend enough time online, if you really want to expand what you know, and the provided with some

tools you can share with your colleagues, i encourage you to go on their website and take advantage of these wonderful reports that they launch about every three or four months. she has been an outstanding educator. they have been very happy for a number of years. we want people to think that your 22. everything that we see in terms of the growth of the organization, the movement not only stays attentive to the kinds of assessments only have so our students will be successful, but always turning the lands around. we know what else is included.

it is important for us to take a closer look at what is happening on the inside of schools. i am going to sell part here. she will share the rest of the world with us. >> thank you, pat. i know you join me in thanking secretary duncan this is designed for use to really talk about the subject of innovation and tom gordon it is to our nation that we do things differently for all of our people.

this is a pushing forward on the concept of innovation. i think that the work that we are here to discuss today, in terms of what is good for kids with the rigor and readiness initiative it would be necessary. those of you that are sitting and doing the most important work in our country today, those of you that our chief academic officers. we could not ask you to come to a symposium. i think you for that.

thank you very much for it i think it is very clear that the secretary spoke about the performance of our kids and i want to say a little bit more about it. before i do, i think that all of you know who a.c.t. is. they are an organization that i have an enormous amount of respect for. the reason i have respect for them is because they actually wanted to measure what kids learn. i think that is the key difference in testing. not a lot of you know if and

about america's choice. i want to take just a moment to say something about america's choice. america's choice was a program of the national center of the economy. our mission has never wavered. i think that is an important issue and it is one that we have in common with all of you in this room. we have had the opportunity to visit 2000 schools. this includes mississippi and new mexico. we work intensively with school districts and with schools and

with states and we provide professional development. we provide instructional solutions for students who struggle to do grade level work. pat talked about my own background. i have had the unique opportunity of being an elementary schoolteacher, i high school teacher and principal and some of the most privileged education systems. have had the opportunity to teach at the university and to work on a project in africa and to do extensive work in the people's republic of china the most important work that i have

done was to be the principal of an inner-city high school in los angeles county. it is funny, but in my own life, i can to the conclusion after spending many years in suburbia and that i need to understand what it will take to dramatically increase the performance of kids in some of the most difficult patricians. all of you get the picture of schools and l.a. county. it is not without exception with the gangs and drive-by shootings. what that experience did for me is that it convinced me that the most talented students and our country are sitting in our cities.

they are not just sitting in suburbia it also convinced me that with the right conditions and support with quality teachers and principals and clear high expectations, those kids will perform as well as any kid in the world. that is what we have to expect of them. everyone who works at america's choice is committed to doing whatever it takes to support our most challenging educational situations. you would not be here for this meeting if you did not care about the hundreds of thousands of our young people each year that are giving up on informal learning and abandoning the school and prepared to do very little with their lives when they graduate from high school. ed recently told us that we are the only industrialized country

in which our country -- our young people are less likely than their parents to graduate from high school that is startling to us. i think that we see are the gaps and growing and their tremendous. when we talk about the achievement gap in our country, i am not sure that we talk about it in broad enough terms. you have to look at the achievement gap and the differences between students of different ethnic and racial backgrounds within the same district. that has been a primary focus of the child left behind. but we also have to look at it in terms of different income levels. we have to look at the achievement gaps between similar schools and different systems.

if you from the different performance of kids within schools do have to look at with the different schools. . .

. . .

or knee . . .

captioned by the national captioning institute ---www.ncicap.org--- [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> smart innovation and entrepreneurship are not the only way for achievement and obtain meant but without them we fall short of goals and do a disservice to our children and country. as the president said is not whether our government is too big, too small but whether it works. tradition the system has not been considered the vast ener

entrepreneurship. the analogy might be slightly exaggerated but for the last century we have not cultivateed a culture of in vehicle or built system level needed to contain a cycle of improvement. starting a century ago big comprehensive schools replaced school houses of early years. schools adopted the factory models for the needs of the the workforce at that time. most did not go to college. students and team teachers are thought of as interchangeable. the structure was not taylors to individual students but to create for the masses and immigrants. it's easy to forget today public schools seem like immortal

institutions of prick and mortar. another turn around schools or virtual and early college high schools were extremely rare. occasionally a high school would clues due to unenrollment but rarely would one be broken up to smaller schools. or themed academies. high school where is eternal structures that defined neighborhoods for decades. the standards and an accountability movement didn't exist. school where is judged more by input than by outcome. now to be sure, lack of innovation for objections from schools did not preclude them from experiments with reform. they tried curricular forms but most had little impact of sustained power. some curricular forms like phonics and,ap exams changed for

the better but more than a few failed. part of the,k through 12 innovations has been lurching from one pinnacle to the favorite without really assessing what works. in the last two decades this institutions of the past have been more open to innovation and entrepreneurship in 1996 the nation had 250 charter schools today more than a million students across the country attend approximately 4,000 charter schools the best charters are models of innovation and worst should be closed but authorizes have waited too long to have the districts to apply the lessons of what does work from the topper formers and charter schools account for more than 20% of all students served. good charter schools increase

quality education options about parents that previously had no choice. my a challenge is to take the next step and perfect the model of innovation and close those that are failing and systemicically replicate and learn from those making the difference in lives of children. they a bound elsewhere in the k-12 system but still restrained by practices in the no child left behind we're evaluated only on outcome as opposed to inputs and subgroups for the first time. on-line courses and on-line supplementation of subject material are vast. we have limited direction in which one where is most directive. smaller themed schools have boosted up. we have yet to know who boost

and those that perpetuate status quo. children with disabilities are university unversele and yet we are now just now starting to advance the practices with the greatest evidence of serving our students well. we are on the cusp of a new era of innovation in entrepreneurship in education that might have been unimaginable a decade to going a but we have a long way to go. the responsibility lies not in just districts but our doors at the u.s. department of education. i was ceo of chicago schools for years and i didn't always welcome a call from the u.s. department of education and that's because they've historically been an agency monitoring compliance with federal education. did not open it's office up of

improvement more than d two decades after the founding and even then it had been modest at best. i want to fundamentally change that historic relationship. i want the department to become a department of innovation and not a compliance machine. i want power to states and non-profits to innovate and at the same time leave most of the creative thinking and an achieving common goals in local hands the best ideas come from local educators, not from washington. here is a brief preview of how i think to best stimulate education in a k pse&g 12 education. reslint i said we're at a unique moment in the history of education reform. we have the perfect storm for reform and it starts with for the first time truly having

resources to start innovation. we recently announced 4 point 35 raise to the top fund at dwarfs the combined sum of all the chris correction their funds available to all my bred see or the sores as education secretaries. 650 million dollars in the recovery act to fund the program which we're going to call i pse&g 3. this fall we'll public notice from the i 3 fund. there will be a comment period followed by application, then we plan to make awards beginning early in 2010. we're very excited abouti 3 and think it'll play a role in realizing the once in a lifetime opportunity we have that idea scribed as education reforms moon shot. we think it'll help provide a framework for years even decade

to come in designing it with sought to avoid some shortcomings and create robust extensions and invest in promising practices and boldly innovate. first, we're looking for programs that are outcome driven not input driven. ways to boost student achievement and metriclation and successful participation should increase education rates and maintain high quality teachers and principals and second, looking for programs taken to scale that are not boutique reforms and finally. stick together fund sustainable innovation and not one time flash in the pan. these are challenging times we expect grant recipients to provide some dollars to assure

programs are sustainable. while the raise to the top targets districts these will be turn around specialists charter schools and other stake-holders. our basic operation is proven programs should be larger than those for promising the largely untested programs. our grants will fall into three categories. first, pure innovation grants of up to five million for promising ideas that should be tried. secondly, strategic investment grants of roughly 30 million dollars for programs that need to build a research base or organizational capacity to succeed at a larger scale and grow what works grants will go as high as 50 million for proven programs ready to grow and expand. in a few minutes my partner that runs our office of innovation heading up the effort will answer some questions about i 3 but i want to take more time to

talk about the areas where we want to provide incentives to districts and non-profits to create in kale scale solutions to some of our most challenges. we'll look though not exclusively to proposals that add insurance the four reforms essential. college and career ready standards. data systems allow together track student progress and support improved stucks. and lastly, turn around schools. we're thrilled that missouri joined and we have 47 states voluntarily working together to establish college ready standards and language art and math. for education energy tremendous pe snurs the movement is a huge leap forward opening up opportunities that were closed off bfrp. it's almost impossible to do

assessments at scale. when you have 50 different goal posts to march towards at the same time. many districts including many of yours use day to drive instruction and supplement teacher evaluation but we still need better models to think differently about how to recruit train and support teachers and get talented teachers and principals to go to the schools and communities that need them the most. that's hugely important to me. also very difficult to design tools to support teachers and school leaders without assess built to know which ones a t.v. greatest impact on learning. like trying to treat a patient without receiving an or doing a fiscal. many of you have similar success stories but with this we still need pioneers of expanding

teaching recruitment. teaching america and teaching programs established in a number of large urban districts whaechlt roughly 5,000 schools in our country chronically under performing for years and unfort naughtily some times for decades. they include about 2000 high schools that produce 50% of the nations drop outs and 75 percent of the drop outs from the african-american, latino students and that's simply unacceptable. we need to stop this. districts. non-profits and francis yoons should have courage to change in the face of failure. replacing staff and leadership. link leading school day, year and transforming the culture. here do we have things to draw from. people may not relies.

that green dot are schools with francis yoon teachers. still we need new approaches to assortment of long standing challenges. expanding adolescents years behind and helping students learn the language and a cysting students with disabilities to provide and prepare for college level work so the core form recovery act. i 3 will bolster other aspects of president's agenda to improve early learning and college readiness to better serve rural districts. encourage them to span and make better use of the school day and school year. we'll support promisingen interventions with at risk students. innovative college readiness programs prepare them to enter college without intermediate yaks as well. we have to get colleagues out of

the mediation business. i know innovation doesn't come easily and if it did i wouldn't ask you to help kree it a culture. successful innovations are often disruptive. we not only understand that but we welcome that. we know that on-line content and courses often meet with resistance despite making it possible for isolated students and hard to access schools have access to foreign languages and mentors in. chicago we had a tough battle to establish the first charter school but i know innovation and inspiration often comes from unexpected places. the barak effect to make it cool to excel in school. not long ago teaching was not considered prestigious among student in our elite

universities. a determined senior at princeton university went out to change that perception. she wrote an under graduate three tt thesis. she was one of the most naive college student this is the history of princeton but had a dream and grit and following graduation she would turn to a new york walk up after making the rounds trying raise 2,000,000 dollars to start her core of teachers. when sheed told the personnel director she planned to recruit stanford students he laughed out loud at the idea that they would think about teaching in l.a. i think you know the rest of the story. two de cased later. teacher america is one of the biggest employers of stanford teachers. one out of every nine students applies to teach for america. it hasn't solved the problem of

recruiting the most compassionate under graduates that become teachers and stay in education for the long haul but they started movement that's made teaching cool and encourage more people to think about alternative routes to engage a generation 20 something in the work of student reform. a lot tough er to think of teachers as interchanges witches. let me remind you a quarter of century after the coleman report. super intendants often heard what happened at schools didn't matter what happened students but what was the thing is socio community background. today we know effective teachers, the single factor in determining student progress.

not rate, class or socioeconomics. a teacher can add vabs a student in a year and a half time while students will lose ground with a weak teacher that they that may advance only half a year. three good teachers are make or break a child's educational career. whole set of tools to improve instruction are available today that didn't exist five or 10-yearsing a. teachers for example now use regular forms of assessment to drive continuous improvement in the classroom. real time data and constant evaluation is taking even our best teacher's craft to an entirely different level. game changes are going on. one last unlikely story about innovation about the origin of charter schools. in 1988, after visiting a school in germty.

al shanker of the american federation of teacher proposeed the united states should enable and this is his quote, any school or any group of teachers to develop a propose for how they can better educate youngsters and give them a shorter to implement that for a period of speaker #5: to 10-years. after that time he proposeed the schools should be evaluated to see the extent to which it met it's goals and charters can be extended or revoked and empower teachers enabling them to innovate and hold them accountable for results. those are powerful ideas. the next year a citizens group in minnesota and edge kay or the picked up the proposal in 1991 minnesota in acted the first nation's charter school law. i want to remind everyone that break through innovations come in unanticipated packages and no, man

not from the federal government. we want to provide empowerment to districts and non-profits to culture innovation and improvement. we're looking for the districts and non-profit to unleash your creativity and build the next generation of reform. if you help, we can transform not just our department but many districts from being compliance monitors to becoming engines of innovation. this is a historical once this a lifetime opportunity and i've never been more hopeful about the difference we can make in the lives of our children. now i'd like to turn the discussion to jim who can tell you about the i 3 program. thank you so much. [applause]. >> good morning. make sure i got this right.

one more time. good morning. don't let that shake your testified. the secretary has laid out a great from for today's conversation. we have two important things to do at the department in innovation. the first is, we have to someone

solutions. you have to come up with solutions and we have to enable to some of the toughest challenges we face trying the implement the reforms we have in the country. the second is we need to create a very different context for innovation overall and put it in the context to continue improvement to not create stagnant solutions. so let's start. secretary said we're going to reenforce with the four insurances. innovation is not something we're encouraging at this time but we are encouraging of thinking how you invent high curriculum that follows great standards and an assessment. second is human capital. great teachers and leaders. how do we ensure the programs

that use the best available about the impact on student achievement to retain and develop and place effective teachers. what do the systems look like. what do the data systems look like to enable our teachers and parents to not only have accountability but to have transparency to know what's working and improve instruction in the classroom and personal practice and support each others work and then in those low performing schools how are we building opportunities scaling nationally improved stimulus dollars. state funds and the raise to the top. disperse transformation in the worst performing schools. we have a 650 million dollar on pettive program. the non-profits that have worked with these schools. we are going to create

incentives to have the applicant focus on the areas that have piloted previously. both staff and elected fairly broad to give grant opportunities that are large, especially if you have the evidence and capacity to scale. the competition was meant to have two rounds. following cheesely to the time raise to the top. as we continue to raise forward we may consolidate into one closing round to allow for the longest possible time for applicants to find partnerships and private fundings and things of that may tufrment evaluations and things like that are not funded separately so we'll look for applicants to actually think through how to produce the learning and context of the proposals. that brings us to the five core things in the design of this program. the secretary talked about the 

outcome. the improvement of student achievement. are we keeping our kids in school and moving forward and graduation? and graduation not to finish but to finish college ready. second, describe three different types of grant programs. do you expect to scale, we need rock solid evidence that your program work bus in multiple context with multiple student groups if your invading it's a different story but having really strong theory which to pin your innovation will also be important. learning. what good is it for us to invest this money if we don't change the way we think about how we understand what the most important questions are for the field and when we invest to create something we invest in a way to learn the idea of how others should think about it.

the same or not the same frankly. fourth, sustainability. if we're not and we create things that can't be financially sustained or small -p politically sustained. how will this be worked not only for the time of the grant but for years and years to come in a way to allow others to do the same. the economic model and support models needs to be very clear. and then ultimately, do you have the capacity to scale and is it feasible? obviously most important when you talk about the folks trying get ten to millions of dollars to scale. even the earliest ideas that are designed to be used broadly, to serve millions of students for all kinds or scale in populations where we know we

have struggled to serve well before. they have to be designed to be easy to use, meet the needs of the students and to have a chance of being picked up because they are cost effective. while these are words not used a lot in the competitions at this department, i have great confidence and i got a compliment saying from someone yesterday, you're going to keep all of us employed. if we're successful, we'll do it to frame for how this kind of work should be moving forward and produce to get great thing as that the end. at a minimum we ought to produce solutions that can scale as a result of these investments. organizations with much greater capacity so they can scale was so you the students and the

implementations there are people w there with solutions and have passion when you respond. how many of you are tired of asking, who's the best, can they come? we need the answer to the last one to be yes. third, we have many anecdotes of promising practices around the country. many have some data but we have to get beyond and produce the data that allows to know things that will work over and over again. we hope we'll have things that validate that were just promising idea before and recognizing this 650 million dollars is a unique opportunity we need platforms out of it and things that low tear threshold for energy pre pe neuros making it possible for education to continue for years to come to do

all three things well, we will get break throughs to work with students and the get the outcomes we want and expect at an on-going basis. that we hope to do this in a way that not only produced innovative solutions but changes the way we think about the process. one thing we'll try an is come up with away to think about it. we're expecting thousands of applications for the innovation category. how do you effectively vet those and get the feedback from the best folks and a the best to ride to the top, recognizeing in many cases your comparing apples to oranges and even cherries? in this regard, we'll try - screen chats scare me. it's like what is that? we'll try to have in ours the power of the community. outside, we're going to let folks find each other recognize

together create an opportunity for the field to be level. many non-profits and many young people and districts have great ideas and don't know who the non-profits are to reach. how can you create a venue where they can find each other and people to work for. districts looking for solutions to particular problems and they're ready to work with non-profits to go into the space. we'll try and create that opportunity so that you can actually see it work. have ideas and come to fruition and see them funded not only by us but through others through informal process. hope to have this process enforceed the way we do our work overtime. now why am i talking to you today about something not even launched yet? these communities are built on the great ideas to start them off and great people engaged in them. so what we reach out to is you

under theres to say bring your ideas to this community and find ways to get this energy ginl of innovation started. now with that, i want to end so we can take questions. the secretary will stay for a while and i'll be here to respond. thank you. [applause] >> okay. you've heard the secretary has just a few more minutes and if you have questions, let's have them now. >> i'll take a few and save the hard ones for jim. sir? >> charles koebl and i'm codirector of a science and math teacher imperative with land grant universities. i want to thank you for your courage and your good work

today. i want to just make this observation that some innovations may have some unintended consequences and i'm sure you know that so the interaction of thei 3 work seem very important. on the question about innovations becoming not instructive but constructive. related to experience i had in new york visiting with an urban university that was experiencing a downturn in the preparationness for physics teachers in new york city, do they set to the small school model they were not able to amount the kind of physics enrollment how the physics teachers meet the courses so one innovation let to an unanticipated consequence. i'd like to hear you say some

things about this. >> great question. all these things have unintended consequences positive and negative if you have example three small schools in a high school building idea that you need three different physics schools doesn't make sense to me. the schools have to partner and so students have a wealth of opportunities. just being more careful how you schedule and collaborate i think can be a relatively simple fix for some of those. it's interesting. we have people in the same building don't talk to each other and get them working together in different ways. >> i'm a teacher. how do we put together and reflect. with those people that are the innovative teachers. there's a lot of us that are

innovators and that's one of the reasons we've been moved around. how do we put the two enforcements together. >> our team has spent a huge amount of time and talk about recruiting the next team of teachers and it's pretty clear what the huge opportunities and challenges are how we do to identify the great teachers and build career ladders and make sure other teachers are learning from them and figure out who the master teachers are or even different schools, i think it's a country we're way behind in doing that and i think we have so many extraordinary teachers making huge difference every single day. and there's still untapped leadership we're not benefitting from. thinking how to identify the super stars and put them in a position to share and a law people to come and watch and model we have to break through. i keep thinking the answers are

not here but they're with great local teachers and principals and how we shine a spotlight on them and enable them to influence the people around them. we have to push very hard through this fund and other ways as well to think about that. not to go too far. we spend about three billion dollars a year on title two money. i'm not sure how much bank for the buck we get through that. 3 billion dollars every single year. track announcer: you mentioned the density in the urban areas having challenges but i also heard rural. can you talk about how we might be distributing the rural, urban areas? >> we have to touch everywhere and coming from chicago which is

not the most rural area. but i try to proportion night time whether hoopers bay in alaska or indian reservation in montana. rural vermont or west virgin i can't recollects to really get a sense for it. opposition for differences. using technology to give students opportunities for higher level classes. a simulate a world. teacher housing and residences are a big thing. we need to touch everybody and challenges are not unique to urban or suburban. interesting is as we look at the 2000 high schools that we call drop out. 20% rural. this is national problem at this level. not inner city problem. they want to fund it best in the every single area and find the

lessons we can learn from rural, urban and suburban. many different inputs will offer the solutions we need. not any particular effect. i'll take a few more and then switch to jim. thanks. >> um... i'm sure alecture of the chief technology from the schools in louisiana and i'd like to ask you from your vantage point, what do you think the department can do to encourage innovation in programs already in place. a large amount of federal dollars that come to schools such as myself and entitle, i.d.a programs so those dollars can be a live and work together towards innovation from my vantage points an a technology leader so all of the funds are

working together rather than sidewises as they often are with skiefled innovation in many ways. i think we're looking for leadership from yourself and department to help break down the barriers and use the innovative strategies in place and cross programs rather than in horizontally in line. >> i was trying to be sub critical. the mirrors are silos here. yours based on ours so. before i ask you to change we have to change how we're doing things if we talk about and we're trying do a number of things differently. we rolled out the money. innovation fund money. come back with teacher incentive money and some folks say we shouldn't do all of this at the same time too much. we want people to think about comprehensive strategies.

and really think through how do we use all the scarce resources. no one has enough money we have 100 billion out there but we know it's never enough. how do we use all this money in different ways and so i appreciate the concern. i really think the-us in is not such a practice in a different way and can we think about how to sport districts and states and not just title one and two and right down the line. we're spending lots of time thinking how to change our business and how to change to be much more supportive and much less silo to make it easier for you to innovate and collaborate with the local but i think we're part of the problem and have to work to fix that internally. >> [in ou [inaudible] aspects y

government and other organizations especially when it comes to comprehensive for young people - so far this morning comments on community goals and how community will be effective and thinking through the kinds of innovations you want. ultimately our experience needs public wealth and opportunities. >> great question. marty is one of my heros in his work developing schools around the country. when i talk about more time lengthening the day and year. a lot of his work has influenced my thinking. the other piece of the answer is getting rid of adult dysfunctions and they have to behave in different ways and money is not the answer to it. our maybe unstated but clear premise is that we're not simply

going to participate in a place will an adults don't coming to. clear implication that if districts and francis yoons and teachers and community partners and park districts will come back later and talk about promise neighborhoods and if adults continue to behave in the same we not going to get the results we want. we want unprecedentd to make sure everyone collaborates and we won't go invest in places that do the same thing. that's implicit in everything we'll do. raise to the top,i 3, you know, teacher incentive fund money. all of this has to be done in partnership and can't be just done in these. with the business community we all have to come behind education to work on this thing, so again, no penalty no stick

but tremendous courage for those that create. there are unbelievable models as you well know. there's unbelievable models and collaborations that help today and we won't resources behind those folks. thanks for thoughtful questions and all of your hard work. appreciate you so much. [applause] >> if we have some more questions jim would be happy to answer them. thank you mr. secretary. questions? >> great. [laughs] >> my question is, can you talk about government sort of acting in the role philanthropies have acted terms of taking things

from the very beginning stage and funding them up? >> yeah, so two things. one is that we expect actually that we're not filling the void that philanthropists usually field. we're trying do a supplement and provide a mechanism for enhancing it. we're thinking to do significant public, private partnership in almost every area there's a private foundation that will invest around it today. sometimes already a consortia. we're trying get them to provide a venue and platform to make them much more aware of what's actually happening in the field and what kind of evidence and result it has. 650 million dollars is not much when you talk about the scale of the opportunity. we will expect thousands of

applications if you do the math you can do it any way. 650. 130 times five, there's a lot of people with great ideas that are not going to be funded out of the public funds so the chance we take ate if i lon throw i is almost nil. we happen to enhance it. ma'am? >> good morning. i'm going to talk about the,e andl students. the last to two years we see most of the school districts are getting to - [inaudible] when the money we came special education and title one and i know a lot of school districts did put any dollars to serve

that. how do you see this as a possibility of change. money is short and also they understand they're english learning across the country and their need is still not at the level it should be. what do you see it becoming in the next two or three years? dream about. political part. >> wow. to be honest i'm not prepared so respond to what will happen to the dream act right now. there's a lot of things in question all the way around. on, aol students the context of the innovation point, i agree. we are going to have a very clear disposition and authority around students of special populations in particular. those are at risk. low incomes and those at risk that will fall into that category. as far as how the dollars have

flowed much of that was specified in the statute so the important thing is going to be for districts and for states to think carefully how they allocate funds to have maximum improvement. the, o gnus is on the state to invest and have the most impact. in the fact that we may have learned to have more and better impact scaling the work around the,ll & my hope is people will pursue those. in the back? i'm bobby. i'd like to know the secretary mentioned the role and ability for corporations or companies with use to apply for the

grants? can you elaborate. >> they can't apply directly from grant bus they're not excluded from partnering with districts for strategies. e.a.s. and non-profits are period. they can form variety of partnerships people need to pay close attention to the eligibility requirements. there's also a proposed amendment to those currently sitting in the house appropriations bill that hopefully we'll see accelerate and move through before we actually let the competition. but we're waiting for the next. i see, let me touch on a couple of things. formula dollars are some of the people talk about what's going to happen with these dollars and reality is this frame is something we hope to carry through administration.

i have over - people focused on recovery but there's almost a billion that goes out in demonstration grant and most have no formal association value associated with it. we're actually spending money on things to create solutions for the field. so that's first part of it. the second question on unintended consequences. one thing the secretary talked about is innovations that have been started and yet we fail to take them to a level to have impact. charter schools are a classic example. set up with what you want to always do. create opportunity for room to grow and expand and try different things and create mechanism to shut down if the innovation is not working. we failed the latter half of that and we have to get better at doing both. we will come here and then back to the front. >> good morning.

college success foundation washington state and washington d.c.. the secretary talked about connecting raise to the problem innovation fund. what thinking has he done in terms of the proposed dollars going to community colleges and technical college in the post secretary side end of 2010 budget? why does that additional funding being proposed? we're getting kids ready but how are you thinking about making connection to post secondary and how will that be weighted if at all in the decisions around you know who is selected the innovation fund? >> so unfortunately it gets a little unsatisfying in how i can't respond how the waiting for the proposals for the successful transition to post

secretary but what you did herec we're going to in sent that behave. as far as with folks not following it, there are large, large pieces of both money and legislation moving specifically forwards the retention strategies and innovation. it's a much larger innovation fund if you will for identifying, scaling and creating new solutions that work for the retention of student at the post secretary level. i think we'll see this is one pool of funds to which you will see the model applied in a lot of different funds where it's around early childhood or post secondary to someone solutions that students actually progress all the way through. all of those we'll' strategies not necessarily just out of the student funds in the back one more? sorry ma'am? yes. the gentleman with the gray hair and then you with the pink

sweater. >> hello jim. i'm also with the association of public and land grant university. science and math teacher imperative. we're pleased to hear the secretary and president with greater focus on stem education. my question to you is how do you anticipate this innovation fund linking with some of the work of the national science foundation and federal agencies that also have some interest and expertise in this area? >> one the very first thing is learn from their experience as possible. many have much more in doing what i call innovation type funds. additionally we try to do enough to understand what other organizations were in sending developing and scale of solutions in particular areas to spend our resources on things that were not well covered. the third thing is that in fact

we're i guess two weeks ago had our first real inner agency meeting where we actually tried to figure out how to leverage the work in more specific ways done across agencies that can make allowance for all of them to move forward more quickly. you talked about the national science foundation. across administration there's a significant stem focus. we announced internally this week. scientific.com which is almost everyone is created science resources open to the public. we're trying get our act together there. we're not there yet but easily in 6 to 9 months you should see a clear and aer istive stem strategy. right here? >> [inaudible]

>> so two things. one isi 3 is a public private partnership separated, at this point anticipated separate from formal application form of the department. created as a platform and opportunity for organizations to find each othered a resources. mechanism trying to be innovative to find a way to level the playing field a bit. it's more than a notion to figure out how to use a platform in the context of the restraints of the government. sorry. over here? go ahead? >> andrews - institute. we're a non-profit, math software publisher and you mentioned before making sure there were time for,l e.a.s. and

non-profits to find each other and you also mentioned the question that always comes up. what's the best, who does it? so i'd like to just, i was intrigued by the screen shot of the website and i'd like to ask if that's perhaps tool the department will put in place to help with that visibility. >> that's our expectation. many people have asked is this the announcement. >> no, this is not the announcement. what this is, we recognize that people have been waiting for a while trying figure out where they need to head and how they need to identify partners and what will be important in the constraint west have we're trying put as much information out as possible recognizing it takes time to think about what the strategys will be talking about scale built and sustainability things that whether or not it's districts or not. not necessarily just trying

facilitate in every way we can. in the back? >> i'm from the university of district of colombia and will theest makes of,lea be broader than school districts or will it include small charter organizations in the district? >> two things. one thing they will include charter,lea's. that's clear. additionally there's a small language saying a consortium of school which is subject to interpretation but allows for flexibility for sets of schools within the districts to apply. okay? with that, i don't see any other hands so i'll go ahead and end - all right. last question? >> all of us benefit from, gps.

weather and that kind of thing and when we talk about stem we only talk about science, technology and engineering but we're not putting up competition math into the school sdis tebt. i'm very happy to piggy-back on that. how do we change if we only have one per if fe percent of women minorities in competitionle math. >> one thing you should see across administration and from overtime is much emphasis on stem in general. what's very clear within that is part of the challenge is we look a the clear and rigorous strategy to identify the core types of skill sets that one, we fail to teach. two that are going to be mostly in demand and having advancing in innovation can give us access

to many more students. as we become more clear about those things and leverage programs to push forward solutions i think it'll be easier and easier to solve. as we go through all the prophesies you will see the process for the public comment period for the fund will come out shortly. all of these things all have an opportunity for you to give your voice to say, i see you focusing on these things an that's great, but what about these any encourage you to go through the public process and insert that as well. with that, i'll thank you for your time and opportunity to be here with you. please spread the word to your friends and colleagues at home. i look forward to the day i can talk freely and openly. have a great one. [applause] >> again, we want to than it

can secretary and jim shelton to use this occasion to share this information about funding to support all the wonderful ideas we know exist all arnd the country. we'll take a break for 15 minutes and come back and turn the lens you. heard the secretary to talking about doing what works and after the break we'll take a look at what is working on international level and comparing our results to theirs and then we're also going to take a zooming lens in terms of what's happening across america. all right. 15 minutes. thank you.

>> up next it's q & a with the former aid to robert kennedy. and then your calls and comments on "washington journal". the ran corporation releases results on a study of rising healthcare costs on united states industries. see that live today at 1:00

profit margins eastern on c-span. live cove rubble of a town hall meeting with virginia congressman gene morn and doctor and former vermont governor. at 7 profit margins eastern on tuesday on c-span. >> as debate over healthcare continues the healthcare hub for c-span is a resource. go on-line and follow the latest tweets and video adds. watch town hall meetings and share your thoughts with your own citizen video including video from any town halls you've gone to and there's more at c-span dot org/healthcare.