obama is completely out of touch with the american culture and american people. there is nothing in his life story that gives him the experience to make decisions. he does not understand. i think he is completely incompetent. we have to except what we're getting. that is what we can expect from a person like him. he is incapable of logic and he seeks approval of the world and all of the u.n. and nato and whoever more so than he looks for the approval of the american people. he does not care about most american people and what we think. he wants the approval of the world. host: let's get a counterpoint to that from twitter. this is americans cannot recognize an honest, strong,

smart leader could a different opinion there. thank you for the phone calls. that is all for "washington journal" today. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] ♪ >> canadian prime minister stephen harper faces a no- confidence vote in the house of commons this afternoon. his party lacks the votes to pass legislation on its own. he needs to court from at least one other party, which he failed

to get this week when he presented his budget plan. we will have live coverage of that no-confidence vote in canada this afternoon and one piece -- at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight, a female loggers, ranchers, and activists from the middle east discuss civil unrest from the country. you'll hear about women taking a role in changing political systems and egypt, iraq, iran, and saudi arabia. >> iran is really bad. the situation is bad for women and for everybody. but this is one side of the coin. the other side is saudi arabia, but it is the darkest side. we live in a very dark area. nobody knows about us. our story has never been heard. because we are very strong in terms of goyal. we support the west with the royal. also, it is an islamic country. the homeland of islam. >> tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> live saturday, a possible gop presidential candidates, haley barbour, newt gingrich, rick santorum, herman cain, and michelle bodman in the morning, iowa at the conservative principles all out -- conference. and our interview with rick santorum this weekend on c-span. a discussion now on the future of oil drilling off the shores of the u.s. the government reorganize the agency that oversees offshore drilling last year after the deepwater horizon oil spill. the head of that agency, michael bromwich, addressed a conference at rice university in houston for about 50 minutes.

>> we're delighted to put this program together with our partner. it is a great honor not to introduce our midday keynote speaker, director michael bromwich from the bureau of ocean energy management, regulation, and enforcement. the director is overseeing the restructuring of the bureau, which you all know is responsible for oil and gas development on the conned into a shelf. he has a very distinguished past -- on the continental shelf. he is one of our country's foremost experts on internal investigation, compliance, and monitoring. having been an independent monitor for the washington, d.c., metropolitan police, and moving on to many different positions. associate counsel in the office for independent counsel for iran contra. as well as an assistant u.s. attorney in new york.

he is a distinguished jurist -- jurist, publishing articles in various law reviews and publications. we're very pleased to have him with us here today to talk about the pathway for word, as has been our theme for the morning. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you very much for inviting me today. it is a pleasure to be with you to discuss the groundbreaking changes that are taking place for oil and gas drilling and development over the waters -- in the waters of our country's shores. these changes are long overdue, for the most part, as is so often the case when it comes to serious reforms in any field. and we were driven by a major catastrophe, the unprecedented

deep water blowout of a well, the sinking of the drilling rig, the tragic deaths of 11 workers, and a spill of nearly 5 billion barrels of oil into the waters of the gulf of mexico. the deepwater horizon tragedy immediately aroused both government and industry out of the complacency that had developed over the past several decades. the result of that complacency was that the increased dangers of deepwater drilling were not matched by increased vigilance and concern for the safety of those operations. today, i want to share with you the steps that our agency is taking to renew its commitment to the responsible stewardship of our nation's resources on the outer continental shelf. i will also discuss the reforms that are necessary, both in government and in the oil and gas industry, to ensure that this activity, which is plainly vital to our economy and our security, is conducted safely.

now it has been almost eight months since i became the director of the bureau of ocean energy management regulation and enforcement. i gather somebody had trouble pronouncing it . it pronouncingboemre. it was greeted by the secretary of the interior, ken salazar, less than two months under the deep water rights and accident, to replace the former minerals management service. the mandate i received from president obama and secretary salazar was broad. it was ambitious, and it was urgent. to reform offshore energy, developments starting with the agency responsible for overseeing it. since that time, we have been working hard to make the changes that are necessary to restore the public's confidence that offshore oil and gas drilling and production can be and will be conducted safely and with appropriate protections for marine and coastal environments. my remarks today will address the changes that have occurred in our -- and are ongoing in the

oversight of offshore oil and gas operations. there many operators and support committee is anxious to resume drilling activity as soon as possible. during the course of the past eight months, i have met with representatives of these companies, many of whom i see here today, individually and in groups. some of these companies seem to recognize that the water horizon was the symptom of a broader failure in both industry and government, a failure to ensure that advances in drilling and workplace safety kept pace with increasingly risky operations and that the industry regulator had the tools and resources to do its job. but there are other operators who have seemed all too ready to shrug off the water horizon as a complete aberration of -- shrug off deepwater horizon as a complete aberration. they point to a lack of similar blowouts, and suggested the

steps taken in response have been an overreaction and were unnecessary. needless to say, that is disappointing and i and my be shortsighted. let me state the obvious. we reject that view. our view has been supported most recently by the report issued by the national commission on the bp deep water horizon oil spill and offshore drilling. i know you have heard from the senior staffers from the commission. if you have not read the commission's report, i encourage you to do so. i was reading the recommendations on the plane this morning. it is a thoughtful and comprehensive analysis of not only the spill itself but of the history and the bell but -- development of offshore drilling and the regulation of offshore drilling. as the commission describes in its report, regulatory and industry reform in the wake of a significant offshore disaster has happened before. the u.k. and norway substantially changed their

oversight of offshore drilling and production following the piper alpha and alexander a key land incidents. australia is facing many of the same issues we are confronting following a plot which occurred only eight months before the water horizon. the specific challenges facing us are unique in many significant respects. the scale of offshore oil and gas operations in u.s. waters, particularly in the gulf of mexico, is a vastly greater than those in the north sea. the economies of many of the gulf coast states are closely tied to offshore industry. the gulf accounts for more than 25% of domestic oil production and approximately 12% of domestic natural gas production. one of the key problems that we are addressing and that simply cannot be avoided is this, how will the government and industry made the fundamental reforms necessary to improve the safety and environmental protection in this massive industry, while at the same time allowing for the continuity of operations and

production? to illustrate the problem, consider this. u.k. offshore production, which again is at a much smaller level than the gulf, dropped off substantially for two years following the piper alpha incident, almost came to a standstill. as i mentioned a moment ago, there are so many -- some in the oil and gas industry that dismissed the condo as an isolated event and is not represent a broader problem. but the commission refused the notion that the broader horizon was a one in a million event. they identified, in their report, 79 loss of well control accidents in the gulf between 1996 and 2009. that is 79, not one in a million. the commission had to of criticism for both industry and federal regulators. although we at boemre had been hard at work addressing the issues they raise, i think it is

important to spend a minute to focus on where we were on april 20. the commission specifically notes spit -- significant failures and needed changes in industry said the and environmental practices, safety training, drilling technology, containment, and cleanup technology, preparedness, corporate culture, and management behavior. one of the commission's central regulatory recommendations is that the oil and gas industry should establish an entity similar to the institute of nuclear power operations, which would be an industry sponsored entity aimed at developing adopting, and enforcing standards of excellence, to ensure continuous improvement in safety and operational integrity of short. we believe this recommendation is worthy of serious discussion and debate. we view such a structure as potentially complementary to the critical reforms and improvements we have undertaken, rather than a substitute. and we are interested to see what industry does to move forward with this suggestion. now the commission was critical

of the industry, but it was equally, if not more, critical of federal regulators, including the former mms. the commission found that federal oversight was compromised by combining several in conflicting missions within one agency. namely, the responsibility for promoting the expansion of offshore leasing and drilling and the responsibility for ensuring safety and protecting the environment. regulators simply failed to keep pace with the dramatic transformation of the offshore drilling industry and the move to deeper water drilling. neither inspectors on the front lines nor senior agency officials have the tools or the training to fully oversee the water offshore drilling. in short, both industry and government were unprepared to contain a deep water well blowout. then there's the issue that i believe played a key role in the disaster. mms did not receive predictable and adequate funding needed to

effectively oversee offshore drilling. over the past 20 years, the mms budget for leasing, and to protection, and regulatory oversight remain stagnant while the water drilling in the gulf of mexico expanded dramatically. we have been working to address many of the issues that the president's commission addresses in the report. let me be specific about what we have already done and what we plan to do in the future. together with secretary salazar, we have undertaken the most aggressive and comprehensive reform of offshore oil and gas regulation oversight in u.s. history, including the reorganization of the former mms to establish a mission clarity and to strengthen oversight. it includes the development and implementation 4-standards for drilling practices, said the equal of a, and in barnacles a part of these new rules set forth prescriptive standards the industry must meet, but they also establish, for the first time in the u.s. offshore regulatory system, performance-

based standards focus on the identification and mitigation of specific risks associated with offshore operations. these changes are substantial and a great deal of work is being done to insure that these changes are both lasting and effective. the ultimate goal is to establish an industrywide culture of safety and to have well-equipped and professional regulators. both elements are necessary to keep pace with the challenges and risks of offshore drilling. particularly as those operations push into new frontiers and face increased technical challenges. let me outline the main elements hour on a mental reorganization and reform of the former mms. as the previously announced, the place of the former mms and a place of boemre, the direct descendant of mms, we're creaking three strong in the pettitte agencies with clearly defined roles and missions. mms, with its conflicting visions of promoting resource development and safety regulation, maximizing revenues

from offshore relations, and lack of resources, cannot keep pace with the challenges of overseeing industry operating in u.s. waters. the reorganization of the former mms is designed to remove those conflicts by clarifying and separating missions across three agencies and providing each of the new agencies with clear missions and new resources necessary to fulfil those missions. we are designing and implementing these organizational changes while we fully take into account the crucial need for information- sharing in the other lang said connections among the functions of the former mms. this is essential to ensure that the regulatory process is related to offshore leasing, plan approval, and permitting did not succumb to bureaucratic paralysis. on october 1 of last year, the revenue collection arm of the former mms begin the office of natural resources revenue and is now located in a different part of the interior department with reporting structure and chain of command completely separate from

the offshore regulator. the president's commission agrees with this change. over the coming months, the offshore resource management and enforcement programs will be established that separate, independent organizations. the next steps in the reorganization are more difficult but also extremely important. they involve separating the energy development functions from the safety and environmental enforcement missions of the nation's offshore regulator. the interior department, as well as the president's commission, has concluded that the separation of these missions is the essential to reforming the government's oversight of offshore energy development. i want to discuss some of the details of the two new independent agencies, the bureau of ocean energy management, or boemre, and the bureau of safety and environmental enforcement of this reorganization is much more than just moving boxes around on an organizational chart. it is about making fundamental thoughtful changes in the way

these agencies operate. the new bureau of ocean energy management will be responsible for managing development of nations offshore resources. this involved in ensuring that the environment is protected and that the nation's offshore energy resources, including oil, gas, and renewable resources, are developed a widely, economically, and in the country's best interests. the new bureau of safety and environmental enforcement will independently and rigorously enforce safety and environmental regulations. over the past many months, we have been engaged in a comprehensive and rigorous analysis to ensure that we address the structural issues and conflict of interest problems that existed in the former mms and to plan for the orderly commencement of the new bureaus. we have worked with and received advice from leading experts in government transformations, and we have examined closely the offshore regulatory regimes of other nations including the u.k.

and norway. we also have considered and will continue to bear in mind the recommendations of the president's commission, which is obviously done its own analysis of these issues. one of the important steps in our planning and analysis has been to ensure we can implement these changes while minimizing disruptions to the bureau's daily operations. we did this by discussing the reorganization with employees throughout the agency. we received their input, collected and analyzed data relating to the bureau's processes, systems, and regulatory metrics, and developed a number of alternative models and options for restructuring and reforming the bureau. this work has been time- consuming. it has been painstaking. but it has been essential to making an informed decision regarding the transformation of the current bureau. now i want to highlight a couple of the more significant changes we are making, which promote the principles of independence, develop a rigorous science, and

safety and environmental protection. we're separating resource management from safety oversight to allow permitting engineers and inspectors, whose job is central to overseeing state operations, greater independence, more budgetary economy, and clear missions and leadership focus than they have had in the past. our goal is to create a tough- minded but fair regulator that can effectively keep pace with the risks of offshore drilling and will promote the development of some of the cultures in offshore operators. we are providing a structure that ensures that sound environmental reviews are conducted and that the potential environmental effects of those operations are giving appropriate weight during decision making related to resource management. this is to ensure that leasing in plan ever will activities are properly balanced. these processes must be both rigorous and efficient so that operations can go forward promptly and with full understanding of their provincial environmental

effects and with confidence that the private litigation against those potential environmental effects are in place. we are strengthening the role of environmental review and analysis in both organizations through various structural and organizational mechanisms. those include first the creation of a first-ever achieve environmental officer in boemre. this person will be responsible for ensuring environmental concerns are appropriately balanced in leasing and planning decisions and for helping set aside to the good and the relative to our oceans. this is a new high-profile an extremely important position, which we hope and expect will track top-flight talent. we are also separating the environmental review and leasing programs in boemre's regional offices. we are creating any plan- approval process in boemre. we're developing, for the first time, a new environmental compliance and enforcement function, which will reside in

bosee. finally, we are establishing as a national liver priority, the review and enforcement of oil spill response plans, which will be conducted in bsee. as a move forward with implementing these changes, we will continue to take the commission's recommendations into account and defining interactions between these new agencies within the department of the interior. let me next discuss the important substantive work, in addition to the reorganization that is going on to provide the tools, the training, and the other changes to the culture, to make sure that the reorganization will have the results that we are aiming for. as part of our broad and continuing reform efforts, we have created a number of of of temptation teams that have been hard at work for several months. they are the central focus of our efforts to analyze critical aspects of the way we are structured, our functions, our processes, and to implement our

reform agenda. these teams are integral to our reorganization effort, and they are considering the various recommendations for improvement that have come from a large variety of sources over the last eight months. including the president's commission, the national academy of engineering, the safety oversight board, commission by secretary salazar, and the department of interior inspector general. if it is one thing we have not been shored up, it is critical reports about the agency. these teams to these implementation teams, are laying the foundation for a lasting change, the way we currently do business, and the way that these successor agencies, boemre bsee, will do business in the future. i am going to take a moment to briefly describe the key areas and issues that these teams are working on, and i will just take them off rather than giving more detailed explanations. we're looking -- looking at permitting.

we're looking at various aspects and inspections. we're looking at our entire regulatory of enforcement programs, including the adequacy of the enforcement tools we have available to us. we're looking, as i mentioned a moment ago, add environmental compliance and enforcement and looking at the challenges of designing the kind of environmental enforcement program we have never had before. we're looking at incident investigations, how we conduct them and how we can better conduct them. and we're looking, as i mentioned a moment ago, an oil spill response, conducting a comprehensive review the adequacy of our efforts historically to make sure that operators oil spill response plans are adequate. we're working with the coastguard, among others on that. as you can tell from my ticking off very quickly those implementation teams and what they're looking at, you could tell that the effort is broad. it is ambitious. these teens have really become

the chief engine of our reform efforts. in addition to the important work that these teams are doing, i want to mention internal reforms we have brought it to place. we are in the midst of reviewing our application of nepa, including the use of categorical exclusions. we have obtained public comments on our policies, and we're in the process of reviewing and analyzing the comments we have received. we're working closely with the council of environmental quality on this evaluation. in the meantime, we are requiring that site specific environmental assessments, as opposed to the categorical exclusion reviews performed in the past, be conducted for all new and revised exploration and development plan in deep water. to address conflicts of interest, which had never been adequately addressed in the agency before, we have issued a tough new recusal policy that will reduce the bejewel for real or perceived conflicts of interest. employees in our district offices must notify their supervisors about any potential

conflict of interest and they must request to be recused from performing in the official duty in which such a conflict exists. thus, our inspectors are required to recuse themselves from performing inspections that the facilities of former employers. also, our inspectors cannot inappropriately influence, pressure, or interfere with official duties. soon, we will issue a broader version of a policy that applies the ethical standards across the agency. i know that these policies will prevent some operational challenges for some of our district offices in the gulf, which are located in small communities with a primary employers are offshore companies. but the need for tough rules and defining the boundaries between regulators and the regulated is both necessary, compelling, and long overdue. these rules are necessary to assure the public that our inspections and enforcement programs are effective,

aggressive, and that they are independent. finally, we're stepping up our new investigations and review unit, a unit i created immediately on taking over the agency. this unit, which is composed of professionals with law- enforcement backgrounds or technical expertise as several important missions. first, it will respond to allegations of evidence of misconduct -- misconduct and unethical behavior by buehrer employees. second, it will pursue allegations of misconduct involved in offshore energy projects. third, it will provide the buehrer with the ability to respond swiftly to emerging issues and crises, including significant incidents such as bills and accidents. all of these measures will help us ensure the rigorous and independent oversight of offshore drilling. i have discussed many of the reforms that we're pursuing to improve the effectiveness of government oversight of offshore development and drilling. these changes are consubstantial and necessary but as the

president's commission has made abundantly clear, industry must change as well. some of this work was begun by the industry alone. but my agency has a clear and important role in helping to spur that change. we're playing that role through the issuance of new prescriptive regulations to bolster safety and to enhance the evaluation and mitigation of environmental risks. we have raised the bar already quite substantially for equipment, safety, and environmental safeguards in drilling and production stages of offshore operations. we will continue to do so in an open and transparent way in the coming months and years. we also introduced for the first time performance-based standards similar to those used by regulators in the north sea. we have done this to the development and implementation of two new rules, which i am sure most of you are familiar with, that we announced last fall and that raised standards for the oil and gas industries operations on the ocs.

the first rule, the drilling said the rule, is an emergency rule prompted by the water horizon that put in place of new standards for well-designed casing and cementing and well controlled equipment including black printers. for the first time, operators are now required to obtain independent third-party inspection and certification of each stage of the proposed drilling process. in addition, an engineer must certify that blowout preventers meet new standards for testing and minutes and are capable of severing the drill pipe under anticipated well pressures. the second rule we implemented this the work place safety rule, which is to reduce the human and organizational errors that led the heart of many accidents and oil spills. the development of this rule was in process will be for deepwater horizon, but as described in the commission's report, the promulgation of these performance based standards was frustrated for a variety of reasons for a very long time. unfortunately, that was the case in other countries such as the u.k. and norway, and it

apparently took a major accident to provide the impetus necessary for the standards to be imposed. operators are now required to develop a comprehensive safety and environmental management program that identifies the potential hazards and risks production strategies for all phases of activity, from well design and construction to operation and maintenance and finally to the decommissioning of platforms. although many companies have developed systems on a voluntary basis in the past, but many had not. and our views had demonstrated, somewhat surprisingly, that the percentage of offshore operators that had adopted such programs voluntarily was declined. in addition to the new rules, we have a notice to lessees, or ntl's. these provide additional guidance to operators on complying with existing regulations. in june, we issued ntl 6, which required oil spill response

plans include a well-specific blowout end a worst-case discharge scenario. also providing assumptions and calculations. in november, we should ntl 10, establishing informational requirements, including a corporate debt from the operator that will conduct the applied core drilling operation in compliance with all applicable agency regulations, including the new drilling safety rule. the ntl also confirms that we will be evaluating whether each operator has submitted adequate information to demonstrate that it has access to in can deploy containment resources that would be sufficient to properly respond to a deep water blowout or other loss of well control. this information will help us evaluate operators compliance with current spill response regulations. this containment issue, which has attracted a great deal of attention, especially in recent weeks, is the principal issue that has delayed our ability to issue deepwater permits. the fact is that although industry has been working hard,

it has not yet been able to fully demonstrate that it has the equipment and systems in place to respond to a plot in it deepwater. -- to a blowout in deep water. we have to approve deepwater drilling before we have an answer to be simple but telling question, what if there was a blow up, how would you control it? how would you deal with it so it does not produce a massive spill that polluted the gulf and soils in speeches? now industry and boemre have been working in crescive -- aggressively and productively to answer that question, and substantial progress has been made, some of it quite recently. i have been personally involved in many of those meetings. progress continues to be made, and i am confident this capacity will be demonstrated soon. but moving forward without this critical piece of protection would be irresponsible.

regulatory changes have been rapid, including the ones i have just described, and there have been, understandably, questions from industry and others about our new regulations, about the nentl's in about how we will apy nepa going forward. we have had dozens of the meetings, both in the gulf and in washington, with federal state representatives, industry groups, non-governmental organizations, and individual operator's to answer questions about the new rules and to provide clarity about the post the water horizon regulatory environment. we have issued a conference of guidance document which provides a comprehensive and detailed outline of the way forward in permitting in deep water. we discussed content of the guidance with a number of companies and received valuable input on the guidance from them and from industry as a whole. we know that the guidance that we have already should will not resolve every question that an operator may have about the deepwater permitting process as it applies to an individual

application, but we intended it to address a significant question that we have heard and to provide answers to help operators move forward with the presumption of work in deep water. the fact that continuing guidance has been necessary is completely unsurprising. with the volume of new rules in formal guidance we have issued in recent months, the need for additional clarification was inevitable, and it was necessary. it reflects no more than these are complex issues to work through, which is exactly what we have been doing. we hope and trust that this guidance can substantially clarify most of the difficult and complex issues that have arisen in recent months. we're absolutely and firmly committed to continuing to work with industry to provide additional guidance on these and other issues as that becomes necessary. we're working hard to ensure that this very important industry continues to be able to operate fully and successfully, and we continue to believe deep

water drilling will be approved in the near future. that said, one thing the secretary and i believe is that a retreat on drilling safety is simply not an option. now, as you can hear from my description, we have already put in place significant pieces of our comprehensive reform agenda, but our work is far from over. the technology associated with offshore drilling will continue to evolve, as many of you know in greater detail than i do, as will the complexities and the risks of those operations, particularly in the frontier environments such as all to read deep water and the arctic. we will proceed through the standard notice and comment or making process to implement further safety measures down the road, including features of the next generation of subsidy to attend and equipment and blowout preventer as a remotely operated vehicles. as we have already said, the bureau will also promulgate additional work place safety reforms through the rulemaking

process including requirements for independent third party verification of operators programs. wilson will continue to evaluate the regulatory standards used by the country's to ensure that the standards we're applying in u.s. waters, as well as the agencies that enforce those standards, are world class. these are among the issues discussed in the commission's report, and the commission provides their useful insights about those issues. over the past several months, especially since our new rules were announced at the end of september, we had heard from countless companies, trade associations, and members of congress about the significant anxiety that exists in the industry that we will soon change the rules of the permitting process significantly, thereby creating yet additional uncertainty about what is required to conduct business on the outer continental shelf. the phrases that we have heard repeatedly are changing the rules and giving goalposts. the implication is that we have

other regulatory requirements up our sleeve that we have not yet disclosed. this is not the case. barring significant and unanticipated revelations from investigations into the root causes of the deepwater rise in explosion that remain in process, i do not anticipate further emergency rule makings, period. at the same time, we can no longer accept the view that the appropriate response to rapidly evolving, developing, and changing industry which employs increasingly sophisticated technologies is for the regulatory framework in the applicable rules to remain frozen and refined over time, the regulatory framework and the specific requirements must keep pace with advances in the industry and with industry ambitions to drill in deeper water and geological formations that have greater pressures. we will continue to analyze information that becomes available, and we will implement reforms necessary to make

offshore oil and gas production safer, smarter, and was stronger protections for workers and for the environment. in developing these reforms, will balance the need for regulatory certainty whose importance we will recognize against the need to act on new insights and adapt to changing technology. and importantly, the process of drilling permit applications and a proposed drilling plans will not be delayed while these additional reforms are developed. you know as well as i do that we can always do better and that we must always remain open to improvements in our regulations to develop the necessary culture of safety. in the past, industry has come in many instances, opposed new regulations. that is, no more responsible, in my judgment, then-multiplication the new requirements for their own sake. we must strike a new balance that fully involve industry and the regulatory process that

recognizes the need for us to exercise independent judgment. our challenge in the months and years ahead is to be sure that we do not once again become overconfident and complacent, but rather that we continue to make progress in developing state of the art save the containment and the response capabilities. the government industry and a the best minds in our universities must collaborate on ongoing research and development to create cutting edge technologies in areas such as well condition center capabilities and remote vop activation, among others. this is why we have established a new offshore energy safety advisory committee, headed by dr. tom hunter, which will include federal agencies, industry, academia, national labs, and various research organizations. the 15-member committee will work on a variety of issues related to offshore energy city, including drilling and workplace safety, well intervention, and containment and oil spill

response this will be a key component of a long-term strategy to encourage -- address on an ongoing basis the technological lead and inherent risks associated with offshore drilling and deepwater drilling in particular. i have made a large number of contacts, including two companies represented in this room, this week alone, with the academic world and the ngo world and with industry just over the last few days to ensure that we have an outstanding committee. as you know, secretary salazar has asked dr. hunter, the former head of a national lab, to share the best to chair the committee. the ocean energy institute, which will be nurtured and shipped by the advisory committee, will foster collaboration among all key sticklers to increase offshore energy safety. the institute will focus on a broad range of matters related to the safety, including drilling and workplace safety, well intervention, and spill response. it will also help to spur collaborative research and development, training,

execution in these and other areas related to safety. among the institute's objectives will be cut -- developing research and develop a strategy, recommended technology, testing and implementation protocols, understanding full system risk and reliability analyses for the offshore environment, and developing research and development of ability in the knowledge-based useful both for preventing in responding to accidents. most important, this institute is a key component of a long- term strategy to address on an ongoing basis the technological needs and inherent risks associated with offshore drilling and deepwater drilling in particular. a final but very important part of our long-term strategy includes continuing our collaboration with our international counterparts. the commission's recommendations stress the importance of sharing experiences across different international systems and in establishing global standards and best practices.

we agree with that. u.s. regulators can and should play a leading role in establishing those standards and elevating the safety of offshore operations, not only in the u.s. but around the world. we have taken positive steps in this direction in recent months. we're one of the founding members of the international regulators for rum and work closely with our counterparts in that institutional context. this summer, we hosted a special meeting in herndon, virginia to share our experiences on shrilling city. we are also is this -- system shall player in the government's initiative, which is in just a global effort to provide a range of technical and capacity- building assistance to government and institutions of specific interests that are expected to become emerging oil and gas producers. we have also increased our bilateral outreach to our foreign counterparts. in october, i delivered the keynote speech in vancouver, canada. prior to the conference, i met

with my counterparts from norway, the u.k., canada, and australia. later this month, i will meet with foreign officials from both australia and the uk to discuss our offshore regulatory programs and theirs. going forward, it is my hope that we will continue to collaborate with our foreign counterparts and developing safer, more environmentally responsible drilling on the ocs. if i have learned nothing else in the closed eight months i have been in this job, i have learned that passions run deep with respect to offshore energy exploration that i am committed to continuing the dialogue with industry, in dartmouth organizations, and sticklers to improve the safety of offshore energy operations and to help strike the appropriate balance among the many legitimate concerns and interests in the heart of offshore energy. i want to thank you very much for your time and attention, and now i very much look forward to answering any questions you may

have. [applause] >> ok, can we have some questions from the audience, please? >> yes, i much appreciate your comments. right towards the end dimensions the international interactions and what have you, i noticed you did not mention mexico or cuba. is there a reason for this? >> no, there's not a reason for that at all. i think you point to a key and important point, which is that we share the gulf of mexico with mexico and with cuba. so i think we will need to work on trying to do what we can to establish common standards so that operators can operate in the waters that respectively belong to those three countries. we have had some very productive meetings, both in the irf context and severally with the

government of mexico. we're working on trying to figure out what the appropriate approaches from cuba and pointing up the those are two very important companies that need to be engaged in some fashion in the international effort. >> another question? >> you have said that the chances of returning to former levels of leasing activity or permitting activity are never. would you like to add more to that comment? >> i have not said that about leasing activity. if that was attributed to me, they got it wrong. i have said that about permitting activities, because simply, the number of additional requirements that we have and the additional environmental work that we are going to have to do on many exploratory plans and additional reviews on

applications to drill mean that we are not going to be able to process permits in as a rapid fire away as we did before. i think the perception in the external world was, for many years, that we were a permitting mill. that may be an unfair characterization, but the fact is that we turn that permits very quickly, and in some cases without adequate environmental reviews and analysis. so that is what is going to cause, i think, a somewhat slower process of approving permits that has been the case in the past. one of the things i want to address in response to your question is the notion that there are large numbers of backlog permit applications that we have. no, the operators know that that is not so. we have nine in shallow water permit applications that are pending. we granted 31 shallow water permits going back to june when

additional requirements were first imposed. so we thing that the case of applications -- the pace of applications will increase as companies come to grips with and implement the new requirements that are imposed through our regulations. but we have very few that are pending. so i was just looking ahead in response to questions of when the pace will resume to where it was several years ago. for one thing, it it was only a narrow slice of time when we were processing something like 15 permits per month, but well before the deepwater rising case had substantially slowed down, in part due to economic conditions and in part due to other factors. one lesson never returning to the pace, i meant never returning to the place where we were turning about that quickly because we do not have a set requirements that we do now, nor the need to conduct the kind of environmental reviews that we do now. so it is not a statement of gloom and doom, but simply a

reality that we have a new normal. it will take more time than in the past. not necessarily a long time but more time. >> thank you. >> i have a question. the large-scale containment programs that have been proposed by the group of majors, do you think that is going to be the solution for companies demonstrating the capability of controlling a well blowout or do you think more company specific programs are going to be necessary? >> i am glad you asked that question, because there's a lot of confusion. i think marine will continue corporation and the helix solution are very important contributions to try to solve this contain an issue. to be clear though, we're not going to require that an operator in an application to drill take one or the other or growth. there may be new solutions that

emerge. it may be that an operator can demonstrate that it has adequate containment abilities without calling upon either the nwcc or helix. i think both have made very significant contributions and have advanced the ball quite substantially, and many operators will rely on one or the other are both. i think it is a very constructive development. it has been a little bit frustrating because we have been blamed for slowdowns and not issuing permits when the industry noticed that the content of abilities are not there yet. i think they will be there quite soon, but the have not been there yet. importantey're very contributors to the solution, but there is absolutely no requirement that individual operator's subscribe to one or the other or subscribe to both. it really depends on the characteristics and configuration of the particular well. >> thank you. >> you are welcome.

>> earlier this week, the white house announced a major new initiative involving significant funding to promote offshore wind energy on the atlantic coast. they said that responsibility for the initiative will be shared by the department of energy and the department of interior. would you care to comment on the policy considerations behind this and tell us whether boemre will be involved on behalf of doi? >> gosar glad you asked the question. yes, the process of running the program of offshore wind is our responsibility. we have an office that has gone off the ground in the past few years that has very enthusiastic, very bright, very interested people that are very interested in helping to stand up this new industry.

so we will be very much involved in that. i think there has been some concern that we're leaving oil and gas behind in our agency and pushing forward with color -- alternative and renewable energy. there are 1100 people in my agency, and approximately 25 are devoted to offshore wind. i would say that 97% of my time is spent on oil and gas issues. 3% on renewable. that is not is a renewal is not important. it is. for those who suggest that we are focusing on renewals and offshore wind because that is the regime change or a transition, i would say the country is not ready for that yet. and offshore wind is not substantially develop it for anything like that. we are excited about the initiative and moving forward. we think we have figured out a way to expedite the permitting and application process. massachusetts took 10 years, so

one of the major pieces of the initiative was rolling out the designation of specific wind energy areas of the atlantic that will allow us to move forward with respect to at least considering whether wind farms can be built with respect to those areas offshore. but it is still, unfortunately, farther away than some of us would like. is an important part of my agents his portfolio, but right now only a small piece. >> you have the prerogative of last question. there has been a lot of discussion in the media and from the commission report about whether there are systemic problems in the industry. i would like to ask you, in thinking about the new regulations that have been put in place, and we had a discussion during our policy panel about the role of government, do you think the regulations that have been put in place are sufficient to redress any kind of systemic

problem? and do you see that as the role of government or reducing what industry needs to be doing? >> i direct a lot of those issues in my speech. i think it is a shared responsibility. i think that government and the government regulator has fallen way behind. that is why we went forward. as you know, there was a report that secretary salazar submitted to the president in late may drawing on top level engineers that helped formulate the recommendations, and that became the core of the interim drilling safety rule that we put out in late september, early october. i think that has pushed us forward in a very substantial way. i have actually been quite heartened by by many discussions with people from industry about the efforts that they are making, both within established trade associations and separate forces, to really focus on safety issues, containment

issues, and spill response issues with a focus that i do not think had been there in the same way previously. so i think that i am heartened by that. i am very excited about what may become of the ocean energy safety institute. i think that has terrific promise to bring government and industry together and the kind of dialogue and collaboration that will advance the goal of industry and it bans the goals of regulators and advance the goals of the american people. i think it is going to continue to have to be a collaborative enterprise. we have a substantial role to play. industry has a substantial role to play. i think that the nature of the collaboration can be different. i think we started to make it different, and i look forward to working with industry in pushing that forward. thank you. pleasure being here. we have got one more. >> can you make comments with

regard to win federal offshore leasing will begin again? when federal offshore leasing will begin? >> i think secretaire elite -- secretary sellers are and i are hoping to have a lease sale before the end of 2011. when it got to do environmental reviews, and we have got a lot of work to do before then. we're hopeful of having a lease sale by the end of 2011, and then there will be additional lease sales at the end of early 2012. that is where we program, and then we go into the new five- year plan in 2012 to 2017, were though -- there will be a full menu of lease sales that will be planned. >> is the government differentiating between offshore shell programs versus the water? >> not in that respect, no. ok, thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> today, the canadian prime minister faces a no-confidence vote in the house of commons. his party lacks the votes to pass legislation on its own. he needs support from at least one other party, which he failed to get this week when the prime minister presented his budget plan. there are reports this morning that the prime minister's minority government is headed for defeat this afternoon, with opposition groups say they will vote to show they have lost confidence in the conservatives. we will have live cbc coverage of the no-confidence vote in canada this afternoon beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern. >> you are watching c-span, bringing your politics and public affairs. every morning, it is "washington journal," our live call-in program about the news of the day, connecting with elected officials, policy makers, and journalist. weekdays, which live coverage of the u.s. house. weeknights, congressional hearings. also, supreme court argument on the weekend, you can see our signature interview programs but

on saturday, "the communicators ." on sunday, "newsmakers" and other shows. you can search for all on our video library. c-span, washington your way, a public service created by america's cable companies. >> we take in up to the clinton school of public service at the university of arkansas in little rock for discussion about the state of public education with sacramento mayor kevin johnson and former washington, d.c., school chancellor. the discussion is moderated by the dean of the clinton school. >> we will take part in the discussion moderated by the dean. following discussion, there will be time for questions from the audience.

in his 2011 state of the union address, president obama mentioned the words educate and education 14 times. while his focus on education was promising, it underscores need for real lasting reform in our educational system. the president asked us to do what is necessary to give all children a chance to succeed. but in doing so, he is admitting the fact that we have got too many kids in this country who are born into circumstances from which success is not a legitimate option. our guests tonight are about to change that. michelle reid is a former classroom teacher and the founder of the new teacher project, which works to certify and support teachers in high poverty schools. she is well known for her tenure as the chancellor of washington, d.c., public schools and her new role as the founder and ceo of

students first, whose stated mission is to defend the interests of children in public education and pursue transformative at reform. sacramento mayor kevin johnson as a former nba star with a longstanding commitment to education. in 1989, he founded st. hope, a committee development organization to revitalize sacramento's inner-city communities, in part through education. as mayor, mr. johnson has made education a top priority. putting students first can make an incredible difference. take, for instance, patrick. i met patrick in my first month as a teacher in new orleans. when i came upon him violently beating another student. patrick was from new orleans but had moved up river post katrina. tall, muscular, covered in tattoos, he looked fairly menacing, and he had a reputation to go along with it. he was a soon-to-be 18-year-old

sophomore in danger of falling further behind. he ended up in my class the next semester, and i learned he was a good basketball player. unfortunately, his poor grades in fighting left him ineligible. however, our basketball coach and i promised patrick that if he worked hard and stay out of trouble, not only would he be on the team, he would graduate gra. two years later, patrick was a varsity starter. he graduated last may. his senior project was a children's book about the importance of team work and dedication. he is now attending community college in baton rouge, the first person in his family to do so. there are many patrick out there, good, smart kids meeting a chance, a few teachers or

coaches focusing on their future. teachers or coaches who find what motivates their students and use those passions to connect students to education. it is my hope that people like michelle rhee and taylor ballinger can inspire us to put all students first. it is my hope that we can encourage all teachers and offer support to those who are struggling to allow all patricks out there a chance to reach kids at or her potential. nothing less than the future of our nation is riding on it. join me in welcoming to of our nation's most innovative educators, michelle rhee and mayor kevin johnson. [applause]

>> welcome, everybody. thank you for being here. this has been one of our most requested program. thank you for being here and for being part of it. let's start with a little bit about what you are doing in education. give us your thoughts about what is the state of public education in america today. >> who is going first? she is the boss. the real answer is that its

sucks. we are nowhere near where we need to be. there should be an outrage. there should be a national crisis. we should be waving the flag and doing whatever we can. think about this. the children in school today will be the first generation that is less educated than their parents. that is alarming, that in the richest, most powerful country in the world -- we are losing our competitive advantage. secondly, when you go out 10 or 20 years, there will be 120 million jobs that will require high skilled, high-paying jobs. at the rate we are going, we will only have 50 billion kids to fill those jobs. that means 70 million will be filled by children from china and india. that is not a good statement for any of us.

thirdly, we are spending twice as much money as we were 30 years ago. the results are not any better. as a country, we need to make this a top priority. it is not just in washington. whether you have children or not, we have to do our part. there are far too many kids that are languishing. there are kids going to better schools and their schools are not serving them to the degree that they need to be. >> i concur with him. we are in a position in this country where if you were to tell me this is a code that a child lives in and the race of that child, we could, with pretty good accuracy, tell you what their academic achievement levels are. that is one of the most un american things i can possibly imagine. it is be training the ideals we

live with as americans and what this country was founded on -- based on how much money a kid has and what family it is born into -- born into, it will only rise to a certain level. it serves as a cry to the american public to engage, right now, in public education. i also want to say that i think we are in a unique moment in time in this country. over the last few months, education reform has begun to seep into the mainstream with things like "waiting for ."perman - nbc did something called "

indication nation." they are bringing these issues to -- "education nation." we have the opportunity to actually fix the problem. i am fielding -- feeling heartened that now is it. >> both of you have experience in urban school districts. what role should cities -- big cities, play in terms of governance, control, leadership? what role should city's plight? -- cities paly? >> i think there is only so much that can be done at the federal level. real education happens at the local level. in terms of governance, i do not

think the current governing structure of the vast majority of our school districts works. you have got nine, 10, 11 school board members all representing their local neighborhoods. oftentimes they are elected with lots of union dollars in a low turnout election. you have this body of people who are not experts in the field who are determining policy. mostly, if you have ever seen a school board meeting, not that you would necessarily want to go to one, if you went to one, what you would see is that there is very little to no mention of children and school achievement. everything is about adult issues. that is a huge problem when you have this dispersed

accountability where there is no one person in charge. there is low academic achievement levels and our decisions be made for no reason whatsoever and no one being held accountable. i am a huge proponent of mayoral control. where we have seen the most significant movement in this nation, it has been in cities like boston and new york and chicago. they have had made oral control -- mayoral contro. >> and the sea. -- d.c. >> mayors have to care about their public school system.

they do not have a choice. we cannot have a great city without great schools. any mayor who thinks that is not in their job description is being bullish. i had a task force on public education. i chaired the secretary of education's task force for may years. there is a spectrum of involvement. -- task force for mayors. no matter what a mayor's apatite is, a maker has to be about in -- what a mayor's appetite is, a mayor has to be in control. we supported obama for rates to the top. we support it, and core

standards. we think high expectations are important, especially if we want to compete internationally. we also did last in last out. it's a policy that is not good for children. it is seniority based layoffs. you lay off teachers based on seniority. that is not in the best interests of kids. you are talking about teachers who have been there forever who may not be performing well. oftentimes, you have some new teachers who are knocking it out of the park. because they are the last in, they are the first out. that is not putting a child's interest ahead of an adult. anyone who talks about reform -- who cares about reform, is going to say students first. at the end of the day, you can lay out important things at the

federal level. you can talk about legislative policy, but the real work will be done at the local level. >> having served on a school board and having been to several meetings, we attempted to set up regular meetings with the city board. it was a struggle. the city board and the school board were not communicating well. many students in urban areas -- to talk about the role of city in terms of accountability -- there are sidewalks that are not there, crime on the streets, poor lighting, and you talk about cities having control over the schools. in the neighborhoods that surround the schools in many urban areas, it is dismal. how do you a " -- how do you equate the two?

>> go ahead, honey. you can go. i will tell you a little story. on my last year on the job in d.c., i decided to visit one of the lowest performing high- school. i never stopped by the office and told anybody i was there. if i did, everybody would be on their best behavior. they would be on the radio saying i was in the building. i would just go and walk around without being announced. i wanted to know what was happening in these particular schools. on this one morning, i walked in. the first classroom i went into had five kids. the second classroom had nine kids. i was trying to figure out, where are the children? i asked a teacher, where are all the children?

she said, today is friday. i said, really? i did not think that was a good reason for kids not being in school. i said, is that the only reason? she said, no. she said, it is raining, too. i thought, since when is the weather and the day of the week a determining factor as to whether our kids are coming to school or not. i continue my tour and walked into one classroom. there were 35 kids in the classroom. there were not enough seats in the classroom. i was watching this class. it was a dynamic teacher who was teaching a lesson and was very engaging. i asked a student, what you think about your teacher? the students said, this is my best teacher. first of all, he teaches us

something new every day. second of all, he will explain something to you if you don't understand it. i thought, that is kind of a low bar for who your favorite teacher is. at the end of my tour, i am walking out of the building. the young man i was talking to and his friends are walking out of the building in front of me. i catch them on the shoulder and said, where are you going? he said, that is our first class and we go to that. our second teacher sucks, and we are going to roll. that is not what the american public thinks of as a truant. you think they are staying in bed and hitting the streets. you do not expect that the children are making be conscious decision to wake up early in the

morning to show up for one class because they know they're going to get something great fun that teacher and then leave after that. that is the kind of calculus we are making as adults. where are you going to spend your time? are you going to get something out of the? it is an indication that things are not always what -- are you going to get something out of it? it is an indication that things are not always what they say. i am a big believer of talking to kids about issues. i said, lots of people believe that because kids are poor and because they are black or latino that they cannot learn because of all of the environmental factors and the violence in their communities. what do you think about that? the kids absolutely disagree. this one little girl raised her hand. she said, i would want you to tell the american people that it is not a back -- not about where

we come from every day. it is about where we are going to that counts. this is what the kids want us to know about the quality of education that we are providing. they will persevere through all the challenges as long as we are making what happens in the school building worthwhile for them. >> there are a couple of things that are important in terms of your original question. we offer some -- we offer something in sacramento called a school city partnership. we have four different school districts. we are asking them, how can we better align our services to meet your needs. there are three areas. one is school safety. the second area we can align our city services with is around joint use, libraries, community

services, parks, a host of things. the third is after school or out of school programs. as a safety, we do a lot of these things. we are doing them willy-nilly as opposed to doing what works. there is a responsibility for all of us as mayors to align our services to make sure they are making sense. a mayor can take all the resources at their disposal and work with the school system. that way, it will not be disjointed or incoherent like it currently is. a lot of things in this country do not make sense. we live it on a regular basis. part of what you see from us is our frustration on one hand. we also have a sense that we are transformational leaders. our mentality is to go in and change things and not just expect them. we base every decision on

results or kids. if it is working, let's replicate it. let's invest more in what works. if it does not work, we do not have time to make excuses. no city is not -- no city is going to reach its potential without taking care of its most valuable resource. [applause] >> today, providence this mess 1900 teachers -- providence dismissed 1900 teachers. do you agree with that? what you think is the role of teacher's unions in education reform? >> this is about to get exciting. [laughter] >> i think this is my cue. people always ask me, shouldn't the unions change?

how are we going to get the unions to do this or that? i think we are focused on the wrong thing when we are asking those questions. the job of the teachers' union is to protect the priorities, the privileges, and the pay of their members. they are doing a good job of that. we cannot be brought them because that is their job and they are doing it. -- we cannot be grudged them -- begrudge them because that is their job and they are doing it. we have allowed a particular interest group to have a tremendous amount of influence over policy and things that we do. on the other side, there is no national, organized interest group that is advocating on behalf of children. >> are you going to do something about that? >> that is why i started my

organization, students first, to provide balance in the landscape. about 4hers' union has million members across the country. you cannot tell me that there are not at least twice as many, 10 times as many americans in this country who would be willing to join an organization or an interest group that is looking out for the best interests of children. i believe americans are ready for this. i believe people are tired of being poor performance of american kids and the fact that we are not serving our children well in schools. i think they are ready to make a difference. my organization has been up for 10 weeks now. it has been amazing. they have over 170,000 members. people are saying, we want to help. i believe over the next few years, we will be able to build

this into the most influential interest group in the country and one that is advocating on behalf of the ingress of kids. once we do that, what the teachers unions decide to do will be irrelevant. because the american people will be saying, it is important to put children first. [applause] >> providence. >> i have been traveling all day, so i have not heard the news out of providence. if what they did was fired all of the teachers, it is not the best move i have ever heard. mostly because there are hundreds, thousands of incredibly hard-working, effective teachers who work too hard-core too little money every day. anything -- work too hard for

too little money every day. we cannot judge entire group of professionals. i think that is wrong. people need to come down the theatrics of little and get two more of what the root of the issue is. if we had better evaluation systems for teachers where we could differentiate and we knew who the top performers were and we knew who the promising people were and we knew who the ineffective once were, we could make decisions based on people's performance that would benefit kids. but to do these sorts of sweeping things that called for drama, it is not good or healthy for the children. i think what we need to do is be much more smart about how we treat teachers as professionals,

recognizing and rewarding the best and the most effective. but also, for those who are not doing their job and who are not adding value, you have to quickly improve your performance or you have to go. [applause] >> i will just add a couple of points to what michelle just said. this is the misnomer on the work we do. there is no group of people that should be esteemed more than teachers. it is the most noble profession. we believe you should be rewarded and recognize. we got to do everything we can to lift the bar. if you look at other countries, they are taking the brightest and the best and those folks are going into the education field. they are revered. we do not do that in our country. do not confuse us by saying we are taking on the union. we do not think the union speaks

wholeheartedly for the rank-and- file. she has something in her contract that but it on its head. if the teachers union is going to be an impediment to a child learning, that is problematic. my grandfather was a sheet metal worker. he said the union also job is to protect and create an apartment where you have good wages, benefits, and retirement. that is the union's job. if the union gets in the way and prevents children from learning, we have a problem. my grandfather is a card- carrying member of local 169. here is my simple story. i grew up in the poor parts of sacramento. you have a poor part in little rock? what do you call it? >> i am not going there. [laughter] >> the porch part of sacramento

is called oak park. i played in the nba for -- the poor parts of sacramento is called oak park. i played in the nba for 12 years. i started a school. my high school, the second oldest high school west of the mississippi was about to be taken over by the state of california because it had underperformed for 10 years. only 20% of seniors were graduating and going to college. that meant 80% were not. i had an idea and i went to the superintendent and said, can we run sacramento high school as a charter school? they said, you can do a better job than we are doing. i thought, of course i can. i spoke to a group of teachers. there were probably 100 teachers in the room. i told them what we wanted to

do. i said we wanted high expectations, we wanted to create a private school education for free, we want to have a rigorous curriculum and longer school days. by the time i finish, i got standing ovations from the teachers. one teacher came to me crying and said, thank you for restoring the faith in the teachers. i came back a week later and followed up later and i got booed by the same group of people. i was thinking, what happened in 1 week's time. the teacher postal union started spreading propaganda. they said, -- the teachers union started spreading propaganda. they said, you will not get paid as much. in the next 10 months, we were in a battle with the teachers' union on whether or not we would allow them to preserve the status quo or try something different because children's

lives are in the balance. they spent $750,000 to prevent us from running the school as a new charter school. the community gave us $500,000 of free legal services. we ended up prevailing. that high school that was under performing with 20% of seniors graduating and going to college now has 80% graduating and going onto for your college. 80%. [applause] the point is, do not tell me kids in certain neighborhoods cannot learn. do not tell me your zip code is going to determine your future. did not tell me kids have -- it cannot do equally as well or better than their current price who live in affluent areas. we are want to fight like crazy to do our part.

>> let's talk about charter schools. some people think they are the end all and beat all. some think they are overrated -- the end all and be all. some think they are overrated. i have heard lots of people talking about, if it is a charter school, it will automatically be great. not all schools are going to be charters. and how do you monitor bad tartar -- bad charter schools? >> does everyone know what a charter school is? it uses taxpayer dollars, but it is freed up from the bureaucracy and rules and regulations of public schools. it is run by its own board.

the problem in a lot of debate in public education today is that people want to find things on one side of the extreme or the other. charter schools are the answer to all the pills or there -- or they are terrible. just as we do not want to paint children with the same brush, you cannot paint tartar -- paint charter with the same brush. some are doing what public school districts have never been able to do, which is insuring that poor and minority children are achieving at the same level. they are closing the achievement gap that exists in this country between minority children and white children. there are extraordinarily bad charter schools. the problem we are facing now is that we have not been diligent

about closing down poor performing charter schools. the whole premise behind charter schools is higher degrees of authority and autonomy for higher degree of accountability. we have given the charter schools the authority and autonomy, but we do not have the accountability side being if you are not performing, we will close you down. that is the problem that exists right now. people say on average this, and on average that. that to be lies the point. there are some amazing charter schools in -- that belies the point. there are some amazing charter schools in this country. we cannot match the -- we cannot shut down the poor

performing ones and give the resources to be well performing ones. >> we do not want our school district running under challenge. -- unchallenged. in california, you have a u- shape. you have some bad charters, then most of the charters, then the bad charters. a lot of bad ones. these are the regular schools and then the high performing that totally out-spike the bad performing schools. the bad ones, you have to close down. you cannot let them continue to go on. if you do that, all you will be

talking about is the high performing charter schools. our elementary school -- we have 95% african-american kids in a poor neighborhood. it has the third highest test scores in the whole city. 95% african-american kids. what are we doing? how did we get the opportunity to run the school. ? the school district said, we do not know how to educate black boys that are poor. we do not know how to do it. can you do it? needlt that, don't kids good teachers and high expectations? delaware they need longer school days if they are further behind. -- don't they need a longer school days if they are farther behind? it is not rocket science or a silver bullet. she finishes most of my

sentences. we created a different environment. michelle talked about closing the achievement gap. this school has a reverse gap. the minority kids in this community are outperforming the white kids in the whole city in a poor neighborhood. here is the one thing that will seal it for you folks who are not aware. if you go to a kindergarten classroom it will stay outside the classroom, class of 2027. that is the year they are graduating from college. you cannot tell these kids -- even though their parents and grandparents never went to college -- you cannot tell these kids they will not go to college. they have probably visited the clinton school more than i have. when you create that it climate of high expectations and you remove -- to create more freedom and autonomy that you do not have in school districts, you

will get a different outcome. we want the economy and accountability, to be held to a standard and be accountable for what goes on. that is not what you see happening in most school districts. our teachers work longer school days happily. they volunteered. in a school district, it cannot work a longer day. there would be filing a grievance. -- they would be filing a grievance if you ask them to stay a few more minutes after school. i am done. [laughter] >> when you are out there in the public arena as both of you are and you take strong and controversial stance, you face criticism. that is true of anybody. michelle, you have come under criticism about what people have alleged about your performance as a teacher. i just wanted to ask you about that and give you an opportunity

to respond about -- an opportunity to respond to that. >> wait a minute. you have to tell them about your mother and your criticism. >> my first year on the job in d.c., i made the decision that i was going to close 23 schools in the district. it was 15% of the total schools in the inventory. if you quickly want to become the least popular person in the city, tell someone you are closing one school, much less 27 schools. my mother was visiting. she woke up one morning and she opened a "washington post." she turned on the television. there were pink -- were pictures of people picketing outside my

office. i got that night after community meetings and i walked in the door. she said, are you ok? i said, i am fine. she said, when you were a little, you never used to care what people thought about you. i always thought you were going to grow up to be antisocial. i see now that this is serving you well. [laughter] i said, yes. it is interesting. in the middle of my tenure, there was a columnist at the "washington post." . he said, i like michelle -- there was the colonists at the "washington post." . he he said, i wish she were nicer.

can you be a little nicer? i said, you need to figure out what you believe the most important characteristic of a school's chancellor are. if you think it is being nice and friendly is most important, you need to be advocating for my ouster. he was warm and fuzzy, i am not your girl. if you like the results and you think we are heading in the direction, you should be advocating for us as adults to put personalities aside and actually focus on what we are producing for kids. we are doingat right now, which is turning a blind eye to what is happening to kids every single day in the classrooms in the name of harmony amongst adults. it causes controversy -- [applause]

but the kids are better off, that is what we need to be focused on. about 20 years ago, i taught elementary school in baltimore maryland. -- in baltimore, maryland. i had some of them -- some of my students in the second grade and the third great. as i was heading off to graduate school, my principal told me, the kids not the test out of the park. of the children you had in the second and third grade, they started out with extraordinarily low test scores. now, 90% of them are scoring in the highest percentile. i said, that was great. i put it on my resume.

little did i know that 20 years later, i would become a public official. people would look at my resume and say, here are statistics about how her kids did. they wanted to show it -- they wanted to know, how did you have the proof. at that time, we did not have proof of this kind of stuff. people said, did you tell her that was the case? my friend said, yes. do you have the proof? my friend said, no. a few weeks ago, somebody out an old study that was done on a group of schools in baltimore. they said that it showed that michelle rhee is lying. they pulled up the data from my school and look at all the children from the third grade,

not this -- not just the kids at my school. they said they were not at the 90 percentile or above. they said, that proves she is a liar. in fact, it did not. they were looking at the entire great of kids, not just the kids in my class. there was no way to choose the exact kids who were in my class. what is visible in those test scores is that the fact -- is that the group of children who went through the second and third grade -- all of -- out of all of the students in the treatment group, the kids that started out with the lowest test scores, they ended up as the highest scorers. even though we cannot go back

and pulled the individual kids and showed bad, what is absolutely unequivocal is that we -- pulled the individual kids that, what is absolutely unequivocal is that we raised the test scores. you have the evidence right in front of view of whether or not you are moving the student achievement levels for the kids in your class. >> in california, we have 300,000 teachers. we do not use data in california to determine that teachers are teaching effective plea. if you look at the top 10%, 30,000 -- we did not use data in california to determine that teachers are teaching effective effectively.

we do not use data that way in california. that is why california is one of the worst performing states. you have got to look at data. test scores are not an end all. you do not evaluate teacher only on test scores. there has to be a mechanism to determine the kids are learning. you have to have other ways to evaluate a teacher's effectiveness. >> good discussion. now it is your turn. those who have questions, please raise your hand. i will get the microphone to you. let's see area right here. >> i am a clinton school student. thank you so much for being here. my question is about parents. you talked about teachers and holding them accountable and

giving them resources. i know a few teachers in the d.c. i used to live there. despite their efforts, they still had students that would fail. despite the challenges, a lot of the obstacles would be the parents. how do you see the parents in these new initiatives? thank you. >> i do not think anyone would argue with you that we need more parental involvement. we need parents to be engaged. when parents are engaged, student learning is going to increase. anything that school districts can do, that individual teachers can do to encourage parents to come into the school district and the ball is critic -- involved is critically important. my worry is that a lot of time in the education reform debate people say, the reason why kids

in the poor inner-city are not doing well is that their parents are not involved. there is a blame game going on. it's the parents were more involved, the parents -- if the parents are more involved, the kids would be doing better. we have seen in the last few months some stark examples of parents who have been trying to be involved in their kids' education. if you saw the movie, "waiting for superman take that you saw thousands of parents desperate to get their children -- =-in superman," you saw thousands of parents desperate to get their children into a good school. parents decided to use a new law that the mayor decided to put forth called the trigger.

if 51% of the parents sign a petition, they can force the restructuring of a school. the last example of a mother in the akron, ohio who decided she had to falsify her residency documents so that hurts kids could go to a safer, higher performance school. you have three examples of parents who are trying to get involved. look at what happened to each of these groups. the first situation says, sorry, there is no room for your kids care. the second group of parents were threatened with deportation and harassment because of the decision they made to pull the trigger. the third lady, we throw in jail. i do not think we are communicating to parents that we want them to be involved. we are communicating to them that we want to continue to blame you. we are better off -- we do not want your involvement.

we cannot dictate how we want parents to be involved. we cannot ask them to be about and then be mad when they do get involved. that is part of what we will do through students first. we will radicalize the mothers of america. the education system better watch out. when we start making demands on the system, you better be ready to deliver. [applause] >> let me follow up on the parent trigger, which passed in california with 50%. do you see that spreading to other states? >> it has also -- it has already spread to half a dozen other states. parents should be able to demand a good education for their children. oftentimes, that is not the case.

in california, there is a group of people talking about repealing it because they do not want parents to have the power. the role of the media plays a critical role. this is the -- our editorial board in sacramento is hammering away on everybody who is opposing character. why would you not want parents to have the right like which, a fluent parents do. if you cannot afford a private school -- affluent parents do? poor neighborhoods have kids who are trapped in bad schools. the apparent trigger levels the playing field and it is spreading around the country. >> hold on just a second.

>> hi. thank you. thank you for being here. i am at a clinton school student in my second year. i am a concurrent student at the college of public health. your goal is to change the social environment within the schools. we talk a lot about the determinants of health, which include all social environments, which includes the apartment that surrounds the school. i want to know where does community development fit into your plan? who do you see influencing that so that the community builds up as the schools are reformed? >> who are you asking that question to? [laughter] >> you have heard of jeffrey

canada. that is exactly what you are talking about. president obama has the promise there would initiative where you are created an environment where the school is the center of the community. it plays a role from the baby college to the work environment. michelle and i met many years ago. i have an organization called st. hope. its mission is to revitalize communities through economic development, public education and the arts. that is a holistic perspective. i grew up in a poor neighborhood. i knew that schools are -- school was important. you cannot improve education without economic development being a part of that equation. if you do not train people for the work force or figure out how to get your dollars invested in both communities to circulate in the committee, it will be difficult. our goal is to revitalize the

community. public education and economic development go hand in hand. >> you have to tell your starbucks story quickly. >> i will tell it at the end. >> i am at election commissioner. would you address voter apathy? in arkansas, school elections are held in odd years. this is not tied to who is running for governor or president. school elections are the most important elections. in my county, we have 80% voter registration. during the school election, i have seen as few as 19 people vote. that is ridiculous. would you address voter apathy please? >> i mentioned this earlier. it is part of the reason why the

school board governance structures are so problematic. oftentimes, they are low turnout elections. you are talking about a small number of people making these determinations about who is on the school board. that means not a whole lot of money from teachers' unions can influence those elections. the reason why that is problematic is that if you look at the vast majority of states across the country, the policies that govern stabbing of schools and who teaches which kids and those decisions are determined through the collective bargaining process. the school board members are elected through a union dollars. the union is on both sides of the bargaining table.

it the union got me elected, i will not go hard-core after the union for a better contract. i am going against them to get elected next time. we have to find a way to get the public or engaged in public education. you have got to know when your school board elections are. you have to know what the people stand for and who they are want to stand for when it comes to running the school district. >> right here in the front row. >> i currently serves in city year. programs like city here and teach for america -- city year recruit from a select group of students. how do we make sure all students serve their country? >> first of all, i love city

year. it was a huge component of our success in washington, d.c. when i first got to the city, i went to a city year opening ceremony. i told them i had an idea. year person inhere each of my schools. they said they had a new program they wanted to start. the whole school, whole child program. it clustered members in failing schools to turn around the culture and environment. it felt that if we had 10 or 12 members clustered together, that could change the cluster of the -- change the culture of the school. we started that in d.c. and it

had an amazing impact in the schools they were in. the city year people were tutoring and running after school programs. it was unbelievable. one of the things i found to be the most heartening was that the young people who had exposure to the city year people aspire to be like them. we had people in our d.c. school system becoming city year core members. they see the power that individual young people can have on people like them. they want to contribute back to their community through the same type of program. >> yes, ma'am. right here. >> i wanted to thank you for

identifying the problem, identifying the solutions, and acting no solutions -- and in acting those solutions so that we can see that they can make -- and enacting the solutions so that we can see that they can make a difference. my question is for the mayor. there was a buyout. i happen to be one of the leaders of the community involved in the little rock school district. over and over again, i issue was they were missing marks because the students were doing better and achieving better because of the superintendent. i reached out to the mayor of little rock and the governor and never heard from either of them. it was quite disappointing. how can we pressed the mayor in our city and government officials to be about in our education?

we say we want to improve our economic standards. but you cannot do that without greater education. tell me how we can do that. >> thank you for the question. the mayor and your governor have to be involved. if you did not hear from them, that means we did not try hard enough. we have to go down there and wait for them to come out of city hall. at some point, all of us want to solve problems in our communities. your mayor is a convicted person in terms of public education. i wish i would have known it sooner. i would have made sure he followed up with you. i will make sure he follows up with you. that is my commitment. think about little rock and the history of the little rock nine. you guys have the richest history in the country. a few months ago, i got a chance in sacramento to hear one

of the little rock nine speak in sacramento. an amazing lady. just listening to her story. i shared this with her. i have been in little rock probably one dozen times. every time i am here, i rent a car. at about 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m., i drive out to central high school. i sit there. i drive around the beautiful campus and the images and the pictures are coming to life. you think of the battles that went on at that particular school so that someone like me could go to an integrated school. now, my responsibility is to make sure those schools are doing their job. in some cases, we are better off when we did not have integration. i am not satisfied with that. the last thing i want to say to you is that it is important to

know. i challenge anyone in the year, -- challenge anyone in here, you would think that results are enough. michelle rhee entered washington, d.c., the worst urban school district in the country. she had the biggest gains out of any urban school district in the country in the map and the english -- in math and english. she did not get to continue her work. the interest groups, the special interest groups and the politics that go on often override the results and what should really matter. [applause] an electedar from official, the mayor of little rock.

>> "waiting for superman" was something i had not heard very much about. the other point, as we go down the road -- adrian fenty did not survive the election. that was pretty bad. someone mentioned what he said afterwards and asked him if he would have done anything different. his answer was, absolutely not. i have three grandchildren and two of them are in the little rock public school system. i want to applaud you and tell you how my heart goes out when i see "waiting on superman." you see when parents are committed to their kids and yet, you have 300 or 400 vacancies

and 20 spots or 30 spots. the lottery selects those kids. we cannot wait. you are absolutely correct. my question is, when are we going to have general distribution for "waiting on superman"? all of us are concerned about where we are as a country. some of the fat side up in washington the day before yesterday about how we are 18th and 19th and 20th and with the first in terms of what is going -- some of the facts up in washington the day before yesterday about how we are 18th and 19th and 20th in terms of what is going on in the world. welcome and thank you for being a part of this. >> the mayor came back in town just to be here. is that your wife?

of some. thank you. the mayor participating in a panel discussion we had a couple days ago in washington d.c.. raise your hand if you have seen the movie, "waiting for superman." the man who did "and inconvenient truce" did this movie -- "an inconvenient truth" directed this movie. it was in the theater for about three months. it is fully distributed on dvd. anybody in here can get the d b d. pettit is out. all the buzz are encouraging folks to have a viewing party at your home. in like eight or 10 people to your house and watch this movie and discuss it.

the power of this movie will outrage you and it will take you off and you will be ready to join her organization immediately. this is what it is about. it is all but collectively fighting together for our with children or somebody else's children even if we do not know who those folks are. that film is being distributed all across the country now. you can probably talk about the second part of the question. >> we are absolutely not competing when it comes to our education system versus others. one of the statistics if you have not seen "waiting for superman" that is it is -- that is interesting is that they tested it in mathematics. the u.s. was at the absolute bottom in terms of what their math skills were. they asked the kids how you think you did on the test.

u.s. kids, now poll -- u.s. kit, number one. this shows you that we have -- u.s. kids, number one. this shows you that we have a problem in this country. we are so busy trying to help kids feel good about themselves, that we are not spending time to make them actually good at what they do. i have two little girls. they play soccer and they suck at soccer. they take after their mother and not their stepfather to be on the athletic skills. if he were to walk into their room, you would see battles -- you would see battles --it is vg to tell your kids, you are not so good. in order to be good you have to practice every single day and even if you do i cannot guarantee you will be great.

but it's hard for them to reconcile with all the medals and trophies. we have to regain our competitive spirit in america. [applause] we have to teach children that you got to work hard and do the right thing in order to be the best, and we have to stop allowing the children of our country to be proud of mediocrity. that is the only way we are going to -- [applause] >> a question up here. let's wait for the microphone. >> thank you. i am also a student at the clinton school. i am very glad you are here to join us. i want to go back to teachers and results. you mentioned the need for good teachers with great results in our school. my question is, in at a school like little rock central -- where it is split between black

kids and white kids, with a minority of other ethnicities -- asians, the growing hispanic population -- what does a good teacher look like in a school as diverse as that and how you measure that? you talk about results, and the kids results, but i am interested in hearing the other things that mayor johnson mentioned earlier. how do you evaluate those teachers? >> so, first of all, i think it is important to know that a teacher who is a great teacher for a black kid does not look much different from a great teacher for a white kid or asian kit or anyone else. great teachers set very high expectations for children. makedon't let children excuses. they hold them to the expectations and they give them what they need to be successful.

children know when you believe in them and when you don't believe in them. the thing that used to make me so mad when i was in d.c. every day, when kids would tell me stories of adults and the school who would say to them, you know, things like, i get paid whether you are learning or not, so what does it matter. or, you are never going to announce anything -- you are stupid so why should i was my time. kids literally telling me the adults in the building were saying those things to them. it is actually not rocket science. if you have expectations for the kids, if you know that each child is an individual and you have to treat every child as an individual -- communication, understanding what engages kids, what is interesting to them, all of these things is what makes a great teacher. i will say this -- at the end of

the day, the children will tell you without any equivocation that what matters most to them is having a great teacher in the classroom every day. they are willing to put all of the other stuff aside in terms of what the school looks like, the buildings -- they know when somebody cares about them and expects the best. >> i just am going to add one little quick -- right. she talked about high expectations. there is something for high expectations. the teacher has to believe in the kit, has to believe that it can learn and that is where the high expectation comes in. if the teacher believes in the kid and build a meaningful relationship, that kid will do anything for that teacher. if the teacher raises the bar higher, the kid will jump. if the get raises the bar higher -- that meaningful relationship is so critical and that is unfortunately what we don't have as often as we like. the other things that are

important, these kids who are really good, that are competitive. they want to look at bay that and determine where kids are learning. they have a goal, they go after the gold. if they don't -- they say they fail, not the kid. teachers who are really good our problem-solving. they figure out, there is a problem and i will soften, with a solution brief if the teachers goal is for that kid to be at school 95% of time, the teacher will call home or go visit. not because it is in the job description, but they will get it done. they will find a way that those 20 or 30 kids are going to learn. that is critical. we have kids in our elementary school, charter school, they have cell phones. so the kids can call that cell phone number if they are trying to do their homework at night at 8:00 or 9:00. a lot of kids unfortunately did not have two parents and household. the kid can call that teacher and a teacher is available after 9:00. and the husband and kids

understand that part of the job is not stop when they leave campus. it goes on. if a kid is behind in sap -- on a saturday, then it teacher will find a way to be with their family then go to school, then back to the family. that is what it takes. that is the commitment. it is tiring. it is exhausting, but those teachers that are great, they figure out a way to make it happen and they don't make excuses. [applause] >> right here. up here at the front. >> thank you for coming. i am a student -- first year. my question is about how we are going to reincorporate the arts with and our school district or within the school system. many times, we find out that teachers teach to the test and there is low emphasis on other things that enhance their learning. so my question is, how can we

reincorporate arts or critical activities to enhance education? >> you will hear from both of us that reading and math are really important, those court subject -- science, we know that. but we believe in the whole experience of kids. arts, pe, they are all important. kids need a whole education. the secretary of education talk about. two quick points. as a mayor, i believe the -- unfortunately the first things that it cut in schools of arts programs. what i have to do is find out ways to supplement the normal school budget so we can provide our young kids with meaningful experiences that are relevant. we do not all learn the same way. some people get nafta the same way, some people use creative expression to learn how math connects the dots by looking at art. we have a pilot program in sacramento called any given child.

it is a partnership with the kennedy school in d.c. -- kennedy center for performing arts, they are doing a pilot program in sacramento where we have arts curriculum in all of our k-8 schools and sacramento. in a down budget and economy with a less resources, because they know the value, and as a mayor, i understand, and the school district and teachers, they love it. when you have fared in schools, attendance goes up, kids do better academically -- when you have arts in schools. and thirdly, these young people become future patrons of the arts. so, everybody wins. as a mayor, i've got to make sure i do my job to make sure that arts are central and a young person's education, even if it is not in a school budget. but the chancellor did in d.c. is amazing. they made a huge commitment to

the arts. >> it was interesting. my second year on the job, we were facing a huge budget deficit. it was about $700 million across the city. everyone was trying to speculate about what was going to get cut. the mayor, my boss at the time, decided he was not going to cut the school budget. he was going to hold the school's harmless. people went nuts. they said the schools make of a huge percentage of the city's budget. they have to shoulder the fair share of the burden. and the mayor said, no, they don't. we are in the economic crisis that we are in this country because of the irresponsibility of adults. we are not going to make up for this on the backs of children. it was not a popular stance to take, right, because only 20% of the voting population had school-aged kids, but believed it was the right thing to do and part of the reason why is what

we manage to do when we went through the school closure process, we had the exact same amount of money but fewer schools to spread it over, which means every school for the first, the history of washington, d.c., was able to have an art teacher, a music teacher, pe teacher, librarian, and a nurse. by saying to the schools and children, it is not an option whether or not you have an art teacher, it will not be dependent on whether you are a wealthy school and you can hold an auction or raise money to hire one -- every child in this city must have access to a broad based demint -- career compared arts cannot be considered an extracurricular activity. it is part of a broad based curriculum every single child should have access to every day. [applause] >> one of the students asked about holistic education -- there york. she wanted me to tell the story really quickly because it is

black history month. raise your hand if you are aware it is black history month. a smart audience. in our community, we were trying to get a coffeehouse coming in. a charter school. and i called magic johnson -- at the time, i used to play for the nba. i called magic up and i said, in los angeles, you run a starbucks. how did you do it? he said, i called up the ceo of starbucks, a guy named howard schultz. howard schultz did not know magic. he is on the other end of the phone. he is like, this is magic, for real? howard is like, i am a huge fan. they went back and forth on the pleasant stuff and then magic says, hey, however, i need you to bring a starbucks in the poorer part of l.a. it changed the whole conversation. howard was like a magic, i used to love you at michigan state.

that hook shot that you made. you beating larry bird. magic is like, it is great, but i need you to bring a starbucks into l.a. howard said, magic, i got another call. cannot call you back in a weaker two. two weeks later in the call the bad -- magic, you're a great smile. if you are just so charismatic did you beat them boston celtics, i won a lot of money. and you got big feet. magic is like, that is fine. i need a starbucks in l.a. howard says, can i tell you something off the record, and magic said, of course. and now i am telling you. off the record. like he told me, off the record. howard schultz said, off the record, i had my team do a feasibility study, do a marketing analysis of the community you are talking about, and the demographic and the profile of a starbucks coffee drinker does not fit the community that you want me to go

into. imagine says, give me a little more. howard schultz says -- you have a lot of black people and black people don't drink coffee. magic, without missing a beat said, you know what, i appreciate your honesty. let me know the next time you are in l.a. six months later, howard schultz is in l.a. and magic takes him into his theater -- the magic johnson sony theater. the expanded the lobby and magic points to the concession stand. however, look at all of those black people. they eat popcorn. they drink soda. they like raise a net spirit -- rainiets. howard says to magic, ok, if you want to do a wager, let's find out whether or not black people drink coffee -- together. howard says, it costs a million dollars to do a new store. i will put up five runs a

thousand, and magic, you have to put up 500,000 and you will find out whether not like people drink coffee. magic thought about it, swallowed, said okay. howard says one of the things -- i will work on the business operation aspect of this partnership, because that is what we do very well, and you work on the community and out -- because that is very you are familiar. so we will play to our strengths. just like a good team. you guys know the coffee margin is not little -- it is big. typically a starbucks store takes four years to get a full return on its investment. four years. the -- this store -- six months. magic gets a call from howard schultz six months later. we got good news and even better news. magic says, what is the good news. the good news is we made our million dollars back in six months. magic says, what is the better news. black people drink coffee. [laughter]

what we are willing to do is we will open up 27 more starbucks across the country. what is the moral of the story of black history month? people in every neighborhood, they want the same thing everybody else wants. the one good schools, safe streets, teachers who care, and they want jobs, and, yes, black people want coffee, too. [applause] >> you talk about the arts. i want to give you a name -- when you get back to sacramento. on the website, look up the thea foundation. [applause] and if you can incorporate that in some way in your program, it is a marvelous organization that does exactly what you are trying to do. i just want to elevate that. ladies and gentlemen, let's think michele rhee and kevin johnson.

[applause] >> more international political coverage to date on c-span as canadian prime minister stephen harper faces a no-confidence vote and the house of commons. his party lacks the votes to pass let's listen on its own any need support from at least one other party, he failed to get this week when a prime minister presented his budget plan. live coverage of that no- confidence vote in canada this afternoon beginning at 1:00 p.m. eastern. tv cameras have been allowed in court rooms since 1981 but not in all court rooms. next come and look at the history of the issue with retired federal judge vaughn

walker, who at the time of this event sat on the district court for the northern district of california. this took place at arizona university's walter cronkite school of journalism in february. >> if you could take your seats, i think we are ready to get started. but for the third panel, we will have, what i've been told, and interesting and entertaining presentation on cameras in the court room. it will be presented by judge vaughn walker, even this district court for the northern district of california. judge walker? [applause] >> thank you, sally. i must say, following justice o'connor puts me in mind of that observation or denmark of the

great aunt ethel waters made during the tryouts for the musical. she was asked by the producer whether she minded following marilyn miller and clifton webb in a song and dance number that they thought was going to be a showstopper. waters said, no, mr. hart, i don't mind at all being on a hot stage. i am going to talk about cameras in the court room and how it is that they became -- at least in the view of some -- disreputable. basically, this is a look backwards. it is not new media as much as it is old media and a bit of history. let's start with the ninth circuit. the ninth circuit first permitted broadcast of appellate

arguments over 20 years ago. three judges, generally not judged as one of the radical fringe of the ninth circuit -- j. clifford wallace, thomas nelson, and the late oliver -- allowed c-span, with us today, and three television stations, to broadcast an appellate argument. in the years cents, request for broadcasts were made in the ninth circuit in 365 cases, and the ninth circuit granted 71% of those requests. these have included appellate arguments in a new mexico records v. master, california gubernatorial recall case, the native hawaiian schools case, and, most recently, the case that susan bolton here in phoenix handled, the arizona

immigration law case. in the 259 case is broadcast, there have been no untoward incidents. so, in light of this experience, the ninth circuit, and its judicial conference in 2007, with the lawyers and judges voting separately and overwhelmingly, voted to approve reconsideration of the circuit ruled against the broadcast of the history court -- district court proceedings and urged the district conference of the united states to reconsider its opposition to video recording and the broadcast of trial court proceedings. because the court administration and many of the judicial conference was considering the national will let the time. the ninth circle -- circlet -- circuit, then, did not implement its rule.

or implement the extent of the judicial conference. but that resolution essentially provided that in a civil non- injury cases of public interest, that judge handling the case should consider the possibility of a video recording and the broadcast. well, last year such a case, at least in my view, came along. a perfect case for exactly that kind of recording and broadcasting. it was a case that's our rose out of an initiative in the state of california which essentially overruled the initiative that had been enacted in response to the california supreme court's decision providing that the

prohibition against same-sex marriage violated the california constitution. it was a civil case, it was a non-jury case. it was an issue of widespread public interest. it involves a superb lawyers. on the plaintiff's side, ted olson and david boyce. and on the side of those opposed to the proposition, chuck cooper, a well-known washington, d.c., lawyer. now, there was some technical difficulties considering the posting of truck proceedings on the administrative offices website hosted by youtube. it does not have the usual youtube and markers on it, but it is hosted on the youtube server. and so, what was at issue at the time was simply a possibility

of a broadcasting and posting on the internet but simultaneous with the trial court proceedings, transmission of the proceedings to remote courthouses. requests have been received for transmission to seattle, portland, pasadena, and brooklyn. there may be others that come along, but in any event, those of the ones we were considering. proponents say there were witnesses supporting the proposition that had been approved by the majority of voters in the state of california would be intimidating if it -- intimidated it is hosting occurred. they saw to prohibit it. i did not -- denied the motion. an appeal taken to the ninth circuit, which denied it. and then the supreme court took up the issue. the supreme court, in hollingsworth v. perry -- and

you can read what the supreme court said. halted the transmission. it permitted, of course, the video transmission could be broadcast in another court room in the courthouse in which the trial proceeding was taking place, but any dissemination beyond that courthouse was prohibited. you can see some of the language of the supreme court used in that decision. at least five justices used in board limiting the transmission of these proceedings. there was a very vigorous dissent written by justice briar and supported by four of the justices -- justice breyer and supported by four justices. where does this repute for

cameras in the court room come from -- where does this disrepute come from? the modern disrepute is related to a case in the early 1960's. the prosecution of an alleged swindler who claimed an association with new then price -- vice-president of the united states, lyndon b. johnson. it was of course, that connection, that drew the public's interest. in september of 1962, there was a two-hearing broadcast live on radio and television devoted solely to his own ship -- motion for continuance of the child and made a motion to prohibit broadcasting of the trial. it was as described by the supreme court, not a scene of judicial serenity. cameramen were in the court room. cables and wires snaked across the floor. wires throughout the court room.

as this motion was granted, the canary that was drawn into the trial in december was dismissed, and that was the end of the proceedings and essentially the end of the broadcasting. the trial took place about a month later, october of 1962. the scene was considerably altered. this time, they both had been constructed at the rear of the court room and painted to blended with the court room paneling. an aperture allowed the lens of a tv camera, an unrestricted view of the court room. but there was no live telecasting except for the opening statement and the closing argument for the prosecution. at the defendant's request, none of the testimony was broadcast. none of the presentation by the

defendant was broadcast. only the opening and closing, and then when the jury verdict was returned. estes was convicted, appeals were taken to the state court unsuccessfully. but the united states supreme court took up the case and the case was heard in 1965. the issue was whether estes'fair trial rights were violated by the broadcast of the pretrial proceedings. the opinion in the case was written by justice clark. he wrote what was said to be the court's opinion, although it garnered only four votes. he began by stating that certification was granted on the question of what that as this was deprived of due process rights under the 14th minute -- "by televising and broadcasting of his trial."

clark did acknowledge that the trial was not broadcast, but quickly put it aside saying, quoting, pretrial can create a major problem for the defendant. indeed, it may be more harmful than publicity before the trial because it may set community opinion as to guilt and innocence. he then launched a broad -- broadside against cameras in the court room. reference to the aba's decision against cameras in the court room as we the evidence a fair trial does not tolerate the " indulgence" of the courtroom camera. and court room cameras have a " insidious influence" on the administration of justice. actual prejudice need not be soon. "television by its very nature beak -- reaches into a variety of areas that may cause prejudice so that one may not figure on specific mischief and prove with particularity where and it works."

television does not contribute to the ascertain of the truth. experience teaches there are numerous situations in which it may cause actual unfairness. some so subtle as to defy detection by the -- controlled by the judge. only the notorious trial will be broadcast because of the necessity of aid sponsorship. experience indicates that is not only possible but highly probable that it will have a direct bearing on the drawers vote as to guilt or innocence. while it is practically impossible to assess the effect of television on jerry -- those of us who know juries realize the problem of jury distraction. we no distractions are caused solely by the physical presence of the camera and its telltale red lights. well, i could go on quoting justice clark. the circumstances an extraneous

influences intruded upon the solemn decorum of court proceedings in a televised trial are far more serious than in cases involving only newspaper coverage. and so forth. well, just as harlan wrote a temperate concurrence. he noted that with the events of technology and acceptance by the public, the dangers corp. described might in due time denouncement -- demands. warren's concurrence, while less floret then clark's opinion, is notable for two things. he, like clark, wrote that his opinion was not based on abstract propositions were generalities, but it was based on the inherent prejudice of a televised trial because of experience.

what is this experience? that seems to animate justice clark and chief justice warren? well, remember, this occurred -- this hearing occurred in 1965. in the 1960's, television came into our lives, at least into public consciousness, in a very dramatic way. the nixon-kennedy debates, the kennedy inauguration -- ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. the glamour of the kennedy administration. there is misses kennedy and the president with the general the call of paris -- mrs. kennedy with a general degualle in paris. the cuban missile crisis. and at least the vinson's one

freezes over speech to the security council of the united nations. and of course, those events, november 22, 1963, in dallas. president johnson's swearing in on air force one going back to washington -- sworn in by district judge hughes with his wife on his right and the widow of slain president on his left. and then, two days later, the homicide of the alleged assassin of the president', and the next day, the president's funeral. and shortly thereafter, the report given to president johnson from chief justice warren of the warren commission report on the assassination of president kennedy. all of these events show what

seemed to be at the time the enormous power and influence of television in our lives. the other notable feature, i think, of chief justice warren's opinion is that of the irony that to illustrate his opinion he used pictures. a picture, after all, is worth a thousand words. and one of the pictures that he used -- i will show you at the moment -- evoked the image of this advertisement which. on november 22 -- the morning of november 22 in the dallas morning news. welcome, mr. kennedy. a broadside attack on the president and his policies and it. a full-page advertisements -- appeared as a full-page advertisement the morning of the assassination. it just so happened, perhaps a coincidence, one of the photographs the chief justice

used to illustrate was a television truck in front of the court house of the september proceedings of wfaa tv, which was the broadcast affiliates of the dallas morning news. well, the second influence, i contend, that seemed to be animating the opinions of these justices was that, like all of us, we distill our friends a sometimes from our own past, our own experiences, perhaps a generation in which we became conscious of the dense. and clark and warren, i submit, were distilling their frenzy from events of a generation earlier. yes, this trial, was certainly not the first notable trial to receive widespread media coverage. probably the most notable trial in the 20th century, the scopes trial in dayton, tennessee, in

the 1920's, was a child that was broadcast on the radio, wgn, radio affiliate from the tribune, leased land mine and broadcast the child. here you see clarence -- clarence darrow in front of the wgn microphone. here we have film images from the scopes trial itself. this, of course, was before talking pictures. but here you have william jennings bryant and clarence darrow. what you have loved to have had an audio of what they were arguing? but the real impact came just a few years later.

charles lindbergh, of course, the first person to fly solo across the atlantic shortly after his great feat married anne and had a child who on march 1, 1932, was 18 months old. another doctor, with a handmade latter, climbed into the second story of the home in hope well, new jersey, and adopted the child. -- abducted the child. the fact that the child was missing was discovered by his nurse, a woman named betty, around 10:00 that evening. a search ensued. there were ransom note left at the time of the kidnapping and thereafter.

an intermediary that colonel lindbergh worked with had a number of encounters with the abductor or abductors. essentially, in may of 1932, the body of the baby was found. it had been terribly abused and of course was dead. a search ensued that consumed public attention. the search for the of doctor of the lindbergh baby -- abductor of the lindbergh baby. then a german immigrant was arrested and put on trial in the county courthouse in flemington, new jersey. the coverage of the lindbergh kidnapping trial was a succession -- sensation. one called it the trial of the crime of the century. h. l. mencken said it was the

greatest news story since the resurrection. and indeed, it appears to have been a sensation. this is the scene and outside the courthouse, people trying to get in to see the trial. >> faces, grim-faced as, questioning faces, serious faces filling the courtroom. the court reporter and assistants take down every word by machine. press cables to world centers described the grim-faced parade -- stern schwarzkopf and anne lindbergh, and colonel lindbergh -- betting gao, the murdered babies nurse. for the defense, the wife of the accused. and nervous bruno hauptmann, the prisoners whose life is and the hands of the jury. charles schneider in gray suits. apple stockton. philip -- albert, wearing

eyeglasses -- gray-haired elmer smith, mrs. may also wearing glasses -- followed by -- faces, series faces. edward j. riley, chief defense counsel. and misses ally on the left with betty -- all faced by the tragedy of. the first is the comment made by it -- the garment made by betty, the one she sewed. then the shirt, which she wore over the first garment. last but not least, the sleeping suit identified as the one baby lindbergh war which the prosecution contends is the one turned over and return for the ransom. again, mrs. lindberg in the center of the picture is reminded of the tragic night. hofmann -- hauptmann's miles defiantly. is he guilty or not guilty? comments by arthur brisbane.

words, words, and still more words of damning evidence. identification. words that span oceans and continents. the man on the street from new york to timbuktu. more than 400 reporters cover the trial, turning up miles of copy to the tune of clicking keys. pointed out to hauptmann. damon runyon, known to millions. >> edward reilly, the defense counsel was hired and paid for by hearst newspapers in return for hauptmann's story. well, newsreel cameras and these images with you have seen were shown in theaters across the country during the course of the trial. newsreel cameras were permitted in the court room. the judge permitted still photography and recording in the courtroom. but he limited the coverage to events outside the trial itself -- at least that was his order. the judge did permit the trial

participants to reenact the events related to the trial, including eye witness testimony implicating hauptmann. >> that is the man, accusing fingers pointed to help men as the supreme court justice and intensely interested jury heard witness after witness. here is the jury, the 12 men and women who hold his life in their hands. study these faces -- housewives, farmers, teachers, laborers -- it's a book of cross-section of american life. they alone must decide whether hauptmann is innocent or guilty. this witness, a taxi driver who delivered the ransom note, looks directly at helpmann and says, that is the man. this witness, 87-year-old german told his dramatic story. from his house leading to lundberg's home he saw a car approach like this, speed around the corner and almost in the ditch. he stopped, the driver glared

and he points out hauptmann. that is the man. jc told how he paid the ransom to john. who is john? he looked directly at the accused. john is bruno richard hauptmann. >> well, to facilitate the filming, the judge permitted a sound both -- soundproof booth be built in the court room. but unbeknownst to him, the crew that was operating the film camera in a soundproof booth surreptitiously recorded the child, and as a result, we have footage of some of the trial itself. the prosecutor in the case -- then 39 years old and the attorney general of the state of new jersey. interestingly enough, his law firm is still a prominent law

firm in the state of new jersey. it the ransom money was paid in gold certificates. gold said tickets, which were due to be retired in april of 1933. remember, ransom was paid in 1932. the idea being this would force the recipients to spend the money, and that would facilitate tracing. a basket containing some of these gold certificates were found in helpmann's residence. and here is part of his cross- examination of hauptmann. >> that money from that shoe box down into that the rise? and you put the gold to to the kids in a basket? five, 10, 20's g. whatever they were? [inaudible]

it didn't you? >> no, i didn't. >> during the cross- examination, hauptmann contradicts itself and forced to admit that he lied. [inaudible] did you live or were you telling the truth? did or did you tell the truth? >> i did not tell the truth. >> you lied? >> yes. >> so it ends, indeed. we don't often have cross- examination quite like that in court. but obviously, in the aftermath of the help and while there was a widespread reaction against cameras in the court room because of all of the intense emotion that the coverage of this trial had generated. the american bar of food -- association enacted canon 35

which stated proceedings in court should be conducted with fitting dignity and decorum and the taking of photographs and filling them in the courtroom during sessions of the court and recesses and broadcasting of court proceedings -- proceedings is inconsistent with that. of course, what happened is the advance of technology. and although in the wake of the feltman experience, 44 of the state's prohibited cameras and the court room, gradually that began to break down state-by- state by state. and by 1980, many states have moved to a model whereby entire trials could be broadcast. and so the issue, once again, percolated up to the supreme court, which visited the issue in 1981. the case was the chandler case. it was a case that arose out of florida. coverage was saw, i believe, by

the television affiliate of "the washington post." so, the supreme court had to revisit the opinions it had issued in the estes case. and in this case, the supreme court said there was no absolute bar to cameras in the court room, that cameras were not themselves been a consistent with due process and fair trial rights. and, as often happens, from the states, matters percolated up to the federal courts. in 1990, the federal judicial center authorized a steady and a project which revisited the issue of a strict prohibition of cameras and district court rooms. an extensive pilot project was commission's and yielded substantial evidence that evidence could be used consistent with due process. well, that is all going along

fine until this happened. and once again, as the hauptmann trial shifted the ground on the issue, so the o.j. simpson experience shift in the ground with respect to the fjc study and progress was not made at all on this issue in the federal courts as a result of that experience until perhaps the very recently. well, i began by talking about the proposition 8 case, and again, by pointing out that there has been extensive broadcast of appellate arguments in the ninth circuit. so, what i want to conclude with is the point which i hope the next few minutes will make,

that there resent -- really isn't a significant difference between broadcast and transmission of proceedings in an appellate court and in a trial court. if managed properly. here is part of the argument that was broadcast of the appellate argument in the proposition 8 case, the perry ks. >> but when a relationship between a man and a woman becomes a sexual one, society immediately has a vital interest for two reasons. one, society needs of the creation of new life for the next generation, but secondly, society -- it's a vital interests are actually threatened by the possibility that an unintentional and unwanted pregnancies will mean

that the child is born out of wedlock and it is raised by, in all likelihood, its mother alone. and that directly implicates societies of vital interests. >> that is nonsense you can enact the proposition that walls of citizens of the state from a fundamental right because you are worried that otherwise children might be prematurely preoccupied with issues of sensuality. if that was a justification, it would equally warrants then income of books, televisions, video games and other conversations with other children. [laughter] >> the first, of course, chuck cooper, representing the proponents of proposition 8, and the response was ted olson, representing the plaintiffs in the case, the respondents in the court of appeals. well, would the broadcast of

the trauma been any different from what you've just seen? i submit the best evidence is an actual clip of the trial. what i will show you did david boyce's cross-examination of the proponents political science expert, a professor, kenneth miller, at claremont mckenna college is. the issue is whether a ban on permitting same-sex couples to marry fits the profs -- professors definition of official or state sanctioned definition. >> that is what you referred to as official discrimination. >> legally, enforced rules that have an effect on gays and lesbians which is different from non-at risk -- >> that is what you referred to as the official discrimination? just trying to get your -- >> may be legal as a better

word, or de jure -- various different ways to say the same thing. >> the word used -- i just want to use your language. >> official would be fine. >> official. by official, a union official this combination that is legally enforced, discrimination by the state, correct? >> i think that is fair to say. >> now, are you aware of any, of what you call official discrimination, against gays and lesbians in this country today other than the "don't ask, don't tell" policy? >> i am trying to think of --

official -- policies -- discriminate on that basis. in no, obviously i think what you are looking at, and one thing would be the donor of policy -- >> there you go. >> i think that is what you're getting at. >> another example. if you are looking at adoption, some states treat heterosexual different from homosexuals. correct? >> that is a more complicated area of law. there is more discretion by individual judges. i think only a couple of states have statewide policies that actually restrict adoption. arkansas is an example where the restriction is on on married couples. so, that could be either

heterosexual or same-sex. >> but in arkansas, they put that in at the same time they put in a law saying gays and lesbians cannot marry -- correct? >> so it means that because gays and lesbians can't marry, by definition, they are not going to be a married person, so they cannot adopt. >> that is correct. but it also applies to heterosexuals couples as well. >> but heterosexual couples can marry. >> but it is a restriction on them that they would have to marry in order to adopt. >> and gays and lesbians can't marry, so the can't adopt, correct? >> that is the current law. >> i think that makes the point. all of us who have been trial judges or trial lawyers know that in a child there are these long periods of silence that occur. there is undoubtedly lots of tedium in trials. one of my colleagues as a remedy

for this problem. he takes a sharp pencil, he puts it on the bench, he takes his finger and puts it on the eraser end of the pencil, puts in the heel of the palm of his hand on the bench and when the testimony gets just a little too tedious and he begins to goes off, his hand goes live, his pencil begins to fall over, and he wakes up. the public want to see that in any trial there are those moments when not much happens. and the other is trip -- interesting point is the train of examination of a witness that occurs only in a child it is not even really occur in an appellate court when argument is between a judge and a lawyer, oftentimes, as was pointed out and the panel this morning, on issues that are legal in nature and which flowed above most people. but that is much less true in a

trial court, where you can see a train of argument, a train of thinking, a train of logic following in mexico -- inexorably. i disclose my bias here -- i think a broadcast of a trial would be even more interesting than the broadcast of an appellate proceedings. there is so much interest in proposition 8 case that several groups -- not just one, but several groups, did reenactments of the trial. this is an image from one of the reenactments. you can see why i and not in favor of their reenactments when they see how they cast the value they cast as the judge. -- when you see what they cast as the judge. they have actors who play each of the roles and their re- enacted the trial from beginning

to end. and indeed, they have gone even a step further than a dramatic re-enactment. there is a musical. [laughter] problems of technology. ♪ ♪ it's a brand-new obama de 8 time to be black or yellow or gay nothing can be wrong join us and the song happy ys