in government? have you ever been involved in occupation of this individual? have you ever had a family member? pretty soon you start thinking is there anyone left in the class that has not had any of these things happen? i guess that varies from jury to jerry. you take it seriously because if you get picked, you will be up there for two weeks. you will be instructed by both sides, and you do feel a sense of civic pride, because this drive by situation. >> you can get in the mail arguments about both. you said a jury system is very important. it is life and death and incarceration and that is true. who we elect may warrantee

taxing and that you make knowledge is important even though you would prefer there would be fewer of it. me to take days or weeks at a time and almost nobody objects to that, why are you so concerned about the requirement that you vote when you can vote >> you can't vote none of the above in the united states. >> you can vote for you. you could write in your spouse. >> none of that says that the voters should have the right to reject the current list of candidates coming out of the two major parties. >> let's add none of the above for the ballot and we go from there. that would improve a lot of things including the value of going to the polls. why don't we have none of the

above? the presumption is that neither party wants to be that embarrassed. they like the idea of faux democracy and i think that is a danger. without none of the above, it would be worse. we can discuss with none of the above and how that would have less opposition. >> how about a cash payment? >> we had cash payments of a type in the system already. the irs s for years if you want to donate $1 to support political candidacy funding. the participation rate is low and i would not do it. >> i don't know whether you have questions of each other that have not been covered. do you feel something compelling to ask? if you don't, that's ok. norm has indicated that we are

done. let me read questions from the audience. what about the homeless? besides what is a valid excuse? this goes to the and the nation rather than the theory behind mandatory voting. >> you will have some difficulties as every society does in going out and registering people. they are more difficult in the u.s. than other countries because we have a federal system. australia and canada do as well. your residence matters. it is not like you're just voting for a national candidate. we have a substantial amount of mobility. other societies manage and you will find some people who will slip between the cracks and that includes homeless people and it may include some others. what they do in most of these

countries is they have a set of categories of what are valid excuses. that includes being ill, traveling, some of the same excuses we have now that our requirements if you were going to do a vote by mail. those are disappearing in many places as we move toward no excuses absentee voting. that is an area where we agree. it is troubling. i don't want to trivialize voting. i believe that if you have mandatory attendance at the polls that it enhances the notion of voting and it becomes a civic duty. that is a good thing. vote by mail which is the same as fell again by publishers clearing house about does trivialize it. >> there is the bias against people. clearly, the supreme court and

the citizens united decision now allows corporate treasuries which raise money from shareholders to economically invest and take those couple of trillion dollars and potentially spend it politically in elections. you said there will always be differences in wealth but this was a specific decision that made easier for wealth to put its thumb on the scale. does that argue for more aggressive voter reform measures? >> politics is about interest group disputes. interest groups come in flavors. the two major flavors are ideological or groups who have a

conceptual framework for how their world view should work and economic groups who are worried about the problems of government either reducing or increasing their wealth. good or bad and there are good and bad in both, they fight it out. that is the nature of politics. it is not clear to me that economic forces are more powerful. most of the changes in the world last centric about because of ideological interest pressures, not because of economic interests. if we suppress one of those two factions, suppress economic voices and drive the market out of the marketplace of ideas, we are left with ideological groups. we are and i like -- ideological group. i think our voices are important but i don't think they are any more and less important than those who believe that earning

well and keeping it is the worst -- worthwhile thing or well should be redistributed. i don't like crony capitalism. under our constitution in the political system they surely play a role. i wish that other businesses play a role in countering crony capitalism. that is a debate -- that is a challenge that we have not figured out yet. >> i left off in and run off voting from the many reforms that could occur that arguably could improve democracy in terms of reflecting majority opinion. if you have a multi-candidate field, if no one gets 40 or 50%, the lowest vote getter is automatically dropped until you get down to four, three, or two

people so someone gets a majority. do either of you have an opinion short of mandatory voting? how could install and run of voting work? -- how could instance run off voting work? >> i would like to see them try it in different places perhaps in states or municipalities. along with many of us watching carefully the california experiment in open primaries which may help as well. >> there are many things i don't know much about. this is one of them. >> on technology, clearly, if records at my bank are kept private, we could get to a point

fairly soon where voter rolls are secured and you could register online and vote on line. is that a less onerous alternative to mandatory voting? do you have any problems with encouraging more people voting so long as the ballot is secure online? >> all that encryption can be done. how do you know who is in the room with you when you press the keys to vote for certain candidates? is big brother looking over your shoulder? somehow we need the concept -- how do we ensure that when they vote, no one is exercising undue influence on them? >> i draw a distinction between

registering on line. we have many ideas for voter registration modernization that includes allowing states to share information about registration. there are many places where they do registration on line and it works well. voting online i have a the same problem. it is not just that you are not sure who is in the room but you lose all of that privacy. with these sophisticated hacking going on is we see that you really cannot be sure what might happen in a system of this sort. i much prefer voting in person at the polls. we need to make that as easy and convenient for people as we possibly can. >> remote transcription of information is via the web and that is a big system with lots of points of entry.

voting boots are isolated. >> if thousands of laws and regulations affecting the economy and families, isn't it reasonable to acquire -- to require that people participate and who makes those laws and then they would be more likely to be obeyed because people would understand. there would be greater compliance because everyone would feel like they have a shot at affecting the thousands of rules and regulations. you do want them to be in the low single digits but there are thousands. >> we do a report every year called 10,000 amendments which discusses the number of regulations the government has.

we're worried about that kind of thing. there will be thousands of laws by government officials affecting us. should it be reasonable to ask people to vote by write-in? >> i suspect everyone is concerned about this. whether voting are writing or talking or mobilizing, there are lots of ways you can try to influence those who will decide important things about your life. voting is one of those things. i don't get as the most important. i don't think we should give undue weight to that idea. if we had a new holiday, and many people would just take a new holiday? would they stay home and study and vote?

>> what it really mean that more? many people say why didn't you vote? i was working. i was busy. i did not find the time. would voting increase? if it was a saturday or sunday voting? god bless of veterans day. we have memorial day and veterans day. one of them should be democracy day and we should have people actually vote. >> there is evidence abroad that you have voting on the weekend or a holiday, we don't have enough of a base to know empirically what would happen here. i am convinced that if we actually did something significant like moved to a 24- hour voting peioriod to the

weekend and if we move toward both centers which is something they have done successfully in colorado where you have a voting places centralized in wal-mart's or costco or supermarkets where people can park and you can go in and you have an ample supply of machines. you do those kind of things. you'll get an enhanced turnout. you can make it work better. those things also seem to me to be critical elements if indeed you moved toward mandatory voting. you cannot move toward mandatory intense at the polls unless you make it much less burdensome for people to go to the polls. >> we have spoken about this more than anybody else collectively combined in the last 10 years. i want to thank norman orenstein and fred smith for

their participation. [applause] thank you for your preparation and insights. i certainly want all of us to thank ralph nader for coming up with a concept of debating not tattoo's which could be one of the taboos but not if you are in the nba. i want to make sure that everyone knows that on july 8, 200011, there will be a debate ing taboos .org.debating taboo voter -- mandatory voting will not be enacted this mother this

year. susan b. anthony in 1852 said the most important right women could have was the right to vote because it affected every other -- in 1882, but -- a constitutional amendment was first proposed in the united states congress which was ratified and became law in 1920. we will be reconvening in 78 years to see whether fred is right or norm is right. thank you for attending. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio] [room chatter] [general chatter] >> another debate from ralph nader this evening at 6:00 p.m. as to whether there should be a financial transaction tax on trade of stocks, derivatives, currencies and other financial instruments. debaters this evening include those from georgetown university. that is coming up this evening at 6:00 here on c-span.

later, former white house officials and a former oil ceo will participate in a simulated destruction of the oil supply at 8:00 tonight. there is the former shell oil co will participate at 8:00 tonight. coming up next, we'll take you to the education department lost three day conference going on in washington. secretary arne duncan will speak to the school about school safety and possibly talk about his proposal mentioned yesterday and offering states waivers from the now child left behind law. secretary duncan is expected to speak at 1:30 and we will have his comments live and get under way. in the meantime -- the paper this morning. this is the "start daschle ledger," investors fear

slowdown. -- this is the "star-ledger," courtesy of the newseum. here in the "denver post." the ont page of the "washington post." the dow plunges 635 points. the new york times, a free fall on fears of economic and credit was. "daily news," and the on " new york post." we want to hear from you how this is impacting your financial decision making. diane and heinz co, alabama, go ahead. -- in huntsville, alabama, go ahead.

caller: it is really having an effect on me because i get disability and im not working. it is hard to even tnk about how people could just play with our lives like this. host: who is playing with your life? caller: the politicians. host: what you want them to do? caller: want them to come together and work with the president, give them that opportunity to do his job. work with him to help him regulate this economy. it is all about working together. host: diane, what is your field from your does a benefit to the benefits -- your disability benefits?

caller: my medicine, i cannot even afford to pay for my medicine. i a a diabetic. i had triple bypass surgery. i take all types of medication. and i cannot afford to keep my insulin. this is really taking a toll on my life personally. and i know it is hurting other people in my situation. host: die and calling in on the under $50,000 line. from maryland, how was this impacting your and its decisions? caller: [unintelligible] they want to make obama [unintelligible]

host: abraham, where you putting your money? caller: [unintelligible] host: son that is in salisbury, massachusetts. -- linda is and saul terry, ssachusetts. caller: this is raised a lot of new panic. it is going to be quite difficult for me to try to stay on topf bills i had

accumulated. i was using this opportunity to get saddled with my bills. now i am not going to be able to do that as well as i can. host: lie not? -- why not? caller: i was trying to pay way over the minimum and now have to use that money to do other things. host: what is happening in the economy, how does that impact? caller: everything costs more money, utilities, car payments, i have a car payment. i also have other financial responsibilities to other people in my life. and it makes a huge amount of difference, because what heights -- when i was starting to work,

they were facing layoffs, then that impacted my job security. host: here is the "wall street journal." bracing for further squeeze following last week's downgrade of government debt. consumers of party been struggling with higher unemployment at elevated levels of personal debt.

host: sarasota, florida, mike mayes more than $150,000. what kinof decisions are you making? caller: i did not want to mak too many hasty decisions. we are a two-member household and to sources of income. -- two sources of its security. social security in many caribbean for an. we also have a 401(k) that has been doing quite well. but we will be losing on that end. and when you look to the featuring you see both of those being impacted severely by the

economy, you have to start looking at options. we are looking at gold and natural gas and domestic energy resources. personally, what will happen is that we will be impacted so strongly that we are going to be poor. in terms of domestic resources and the futu. i think we will have to work a ole flock -- a lot harder. we have gold right now as a hedge against all of this and i think it will continue. host: you think the price of gold will keep going up. caller: yes, i do. host: johnny, what are your thoughts? caller: i have two daughters in college they have their own apartments. one will have to move back home and one may have to because of the economy.

and is a manufactured situation, because congress can fix the problem if it created jobs. our infrastructure is falling apart. if congress is there and says we're not going to spend money. you have to spend money to create jobs. you have to raise taxes. if you say we are not compromising on anything, nothing will get done. this country was built on compromises. no one gets everything that they want. if y have a political person that says they will not compromise, it is my way or no way, then nothing will get done. host: you have two daughters under the age of 25? and the unemployment rate for under age 25 is reaching 20%. hallwood and infrastructure bank, or construction jobs, help

your daughters to work? ller: when you create those construction jobs, those jobs, peopleave to spend money. you go to the store and you spend money and in the process of people running the sres, murray generates more money. -- money generates more money, it creates other jobs. you need accountants and everybody because more moneys generated. when you sit around and say we're not doing anything, and i'm trying not to be political, but if the republicans say we're not going to do anything until president obama is out of office, if he ss left, they say right. he says up and they say down. they are no, no, no, and then it is not hurting president obama. it is the 01-term president, he

is out but he is still rich. but what about the regular people they work every day? they are not only hurting him being reelected, but the actual working class people. host: i don't know if you saw that he had a press conference yesterday. part of the headlines about how this continues to slide downward. but during that speech, he said his ideas on what he would help address the s&p downgrade three entitlement reform, a payroll tax cut, tax reform, and unemplment insurance as the waste and not only tackle the debt and defit but it our economy growing. there was a memo put out yesterday by house republicans eric cantor where in the memo he says that staying strong on republicans, when the super

committee comes together, republicans should not agree to any sort of tax revenues put on the table. and here is a senator from texas's response to the president's speech yesterday. he won this and april and again in july after sears fiscal reform that the credit rating would suffer. senate democrats blocked one proposal that may have averted a downgrade. andhen in the papers and opinion section, here's the "wall street journal." a downgrade awakening is how they see it. the current u.s. debt debate is not a sign of american political dysfunction despite what the s and p and the chinese say.

"washington post" has this editorial. adjustments to it, programs must be part of the equation even in the face of democratic opposition. new revenues must be considered despit republican vows to resist. we will to robert in indianapolis. caller: i have had to modify some changes, and i think the political wrangling in washington is nodoing the economy any good.

but what has the tea party crazy, creating an atmosphere and confused people that do not follow the news and up on their issues, what they're doing is miing the point and encouraging the people to support their position. what is beyond the driver of the situatn is directed at president obama, simply because he is a product of mixed parentage, and as extremist, -- those extremists, they will not say a publicly, but they are doing everything to wreck this economy so that poor people like myself will not have an

opportunity to survive. is going to get so chaotic until it is going to force their hand, and the people in the country will rise up and create their rebellion. what i cannot understand is the fact that lot of the people that are somewt intelligent are sitting on the sidelinesnd allowing these people to do this. they are kneeling over with mart watch, thank you for joining us from frankfurt, germany this morning. coming back to all of you an your phone calls, how does this impact your financial decisions? if you want to send a safe tweet, go to twitter. we'll read some of your comments on there. you can ao the fourth page -- our facebook page.

here is one of the comments there. mark is in philadelphia in the mid range. caller: what my wife and i have done is basically that sent down the hatches. i am a retired federal employee. my wife is currently working as a federal employee. as far as i configured, all of this tall, it is coming strait at us. it is coming right at my pension. i have not gotten a cola and two years. god knows how many more years. by health insurance is gone up 20%. those who say that we do not pay anything, i pay 33% of my

premium and so does my wife. none of us have gone raises and two years, and our health insurance is going up 30% a year. usually we take a week down the jersey shore. our sole vacation this year has been all long weekend in brooklyn when my knees got married. that has been met. my personal opinion is that this is exactly what the republicans nt. all these talks of entitlement cuts and other cuts, they're trashing consumer confidence. that is why we're going to have a double-dip recession. that is why the stock market is going down for it with all these cuts coming down the road to people, they're not going to spend. y would my wife and i go out and buy a new c when two down the road, how many that for insurance premiums? to twoe'll be talking

economist coming up in 20 minutes, a conservative and a progressive economist, to get two different takes. if you have questions about consumer confidence and all of those and other economic indicators, you can call and then. we would go to greg in the high range. go ahead. caller: i am extremely frustrated with this congress and ts president. i'm a diehard republican. i have gone to a cash position and everything. i've sold all my stocks. we sd some of our real estate. but we have to have compromise. we need the republicans, by refusing to not negotiate here with taxes, don't they realize

that we are and two wars? when have we ever thought a war and not had taxes raised? this is absolutely ridiculous. we are in such dire consequences with our debt that we have to do both. we are in a position right now -- i am >> you can see all of today's "washington journal" in our cspan video library. we will go to the education department and their annual conference. secretary arne duncan is set to speak next. this is live coverage here on c- span. >> we basically did our homework. we examined other introductions. there has been hundreds of them. we talked to the folks who had the honor of introducing him previously to say what they said. we checked out the youtube

clicks that had on the secretary. , not on company time. [laughter] we discovered after being secretary of education for 2.5 years and countless interviews with newspapers large and small and tv stations and cable news shows and arne has even been on comedy central. there is nothing new to say about him. he went to harvard, he played basketball, he was co-captain of the team and kicked around a little bit in australia where he played basketball. he ran a successful nonprofit education, the real initiative in chicago. he took on the small task of reforming the chicago public schools. we went back and checked with one of his predecessors. they said that they are sure that there is a system as bad as

the chicago system but i just don't know which one it is. he went on to say that it would take a man or woman of steel to clean up the chicago's system. then he caught a break. one of my eagle eyed staff noticed that there was one program that secretary duncan was not on. wwld - hm, what could that be? what would letterman do? [laughter] if secretary duncan was on the letterman show, what would letterman do? we know what he would do. letterman would do a top 10 of the reasons why it arne duncan

was chosen to be secretary of education. number 10 -- he takes the phrase 'roll up your sleeves' and get to work literally. he is always rolling up his sleeves and taking his jacket off. he single-handedly causes a stock to rise by encouraging students to watch their -- wash their hands. 8 - why energy secretary chu has a tough time dealing with oil and gas pipelines, secretary duncan has a tougher job in dismantling the school and prison pipeline. [applause] he has education in his blood. both his parents for educators. his wife as an educator. he knows the intricacies and complexities of the education system. 6 -he has partnered so much

with the secretaries of hhs and dhs as well as the attorney general that he could easily slide into one of their positions if they leave. he can relate to the underdog. he has not shied away from taking on the really tough issues like a bullying and teasing and harassment. [applause] #four -- he not only talks of education is a several critics of all right, he gave the office of civil rights leadership needed to insure the rights of all students are protected. [applause] #3 -- it took fema 20 years for schools to adopt a plan for safety and it took arne duncan and our -- 10 minutes to induce

a fifth. number 2- he made colbert a believer in education reform and number one, he walked to the talks. [applause] -- he walked the top. -- he walked the talk. there is a ceremony last week in canton, ohio at the football hall of fame. this is the fourth year in a row that a former redskin, you know me as a redskin fan, there is a former redskin inducted into the hall of fame, chris hamburger. he was asked a question by reporters if there was one thing he was disappointed in in the years he played as a redskin. he thought about it for a moment and he said yes, there is one thing. he said he is disappointed i he only had the opportunity to work

with coach lombardi for one year. coach lombardi, those of you in on the football fans, was the famous coach of the green bay packers. he was the coach of the washington redskins for one year before he contracted cancer and passed away. the super bowl is named after -- the lombardi trophy is given to the winner of the super bowl trophy after the coach. chris hamburger went on to say that he valued playing for vince lombardi because vince lombardi had visited. he had vision for the team. he had high standards and expectations for everyone. he did not shy away from any issue big or small, tough or not tough and he knew had to use his assistant coaches. he treated everyone the same peri. please join me in welcoming our vince lombardi, our coach, arne duncan. [applause]

>> good afternoon and thank you for that kind introduction. please given a round of applause. [applause] i will keep my remarks pretty brief and i will take questions when i am done. i want to start by saying thank you. the difference you are making in schools and classrooms and districts and states around the country today is absolutely extraordinary. i know the amazing challenges you face every day as he tried to help our nation's children get a grade education and have the opportunity and support and guidance to fulfil their potential. the challenges to our country and our kids are staggering. rates of poverty we have not seen in a long time. rates of homeless ness, rates of

on employment, i don't know if there is a district in this country where title one counter not going down but up. we know the challenges that poverty brings to our children. levels of violence in school, sometimes their children's homes, in communities that are devastating. this is by far the toughest challenge i face. we were able to make our schools in chicago much safer. we were basically having one student shot and killed every two weeks. it was a staggering rate of violence and i cannot tell you the toll it took me personally trying to go to classrooms and talk to classmates about the friend they have lost in trying to make sense of it and going to homes to talk to parents of children who were honor roll students were doing nothing wrong who were playing basketball at literally sitting in their living room and got shot. this was due to random violence.

you deal with these tough issues every single day. the bullying our students are facing is unprecedented. the easy accessibility of drugs and alcohol that younger and younger ages have, i am amazed at students aged 10 talk about the temptations and pressures they are facing. there are two sides of the same coin that some people don't realize in neighborhoods where you have obesity and real hundred. it is often on the same block and in the same community. the challenges you guys face with all these horrendous areas for students for filling their potential are huge. at a time when you are facing those challenges, our students getting a great education, that mission has never been more important. we know the international competition, we know we fell from first in the world to 19 college graduates and other countries are passing us by.

we have over a million kids leaving our schools for the streets. as i look across the globe and look at the competition we face in places like south korea where the president of south korea talked to president obama and president obama asked what their educational challenge is and the presence of south korea's of the parents are too demanding. we wish we had those kind of challenges here. over the next five years, south korea is going from print books to all digital in 2015. that is what the competition is these days. this is across the globe. we have to think how we better prepare our students for that. you guys are facing immense challenges and young people are facing challenges, education has

never been more important. we have never had lesser resources which is the sad truth. we have far too many leaders double local level, the state level, folks in congress who are tapping public education and don't believe in it and don't think this is an investment. we have to continue to challenge that mentality. we have to educate our nation's young people. we have to educate our way to a better economy. and when things we should be cutting back on early childhood care and education or access to higher education is part of the problem. these are tough budget times the budgets reflect our priorities and our values. where we fail to invest in young children, we do our children a grave disservice. [applause] we have to continue to fight

that battle in districts and communities end in cities and states at the national level every single day. it is amazing to see so many elected officials who want to dismantle public education in this country. i don't know what planet they live on or what their values are. we need to continue to push back in demonstrate our descent. [applause] demonstrate our success and commitment. what do we do in a time of huge need and huge issues and smaller resources? we cannot stop. our children get one chance to get a great education. we have to move forward together. we have to use relationships and partnerships. we have to do some things differently in order to make sure there are children who desperately need a child education and need a chance to

be successful have those opportunities. we try to partner with other agencies across the administration to work it in different ways. for far too long, different departments have been -- have not spoken to each other. i have been so pleased and surprised to see my colleagues to lead in other places with their lack of ego and willingness to cooperate and willingness to partner and if we can hope in by example, we will see these partnerships start to emerge. my good friend eric holder, the attorney general, we're working together to see how we have more positive school disciplined tactics across the country. we are expelling students and many of our students are going from the classroom to incarceration. that has to stop. his personal for me. when i managed a chicago public school, i became very alarmed at the number of young people being

arrested. i met with the police chief. i asked them to help us. he looked me in the eye and said that you are the problem. we looked at the data and it was an eye opener for me. we were a big part of the problem in the chicago public schools. the vast majority of arrests were not happening at 6:00 in the evening or 2:00 in the morning. that happened from 9:00 until 3:00 when our children were in school ve. the data was fascinating. we found that 7% of our schools or leading to 55% of their arrests. we have schools that were four or five blocks from each other. some schools they were arresting

literally 100 -- hundreds of children and some were nothing. we have to look ourselves in the eye and see how we better trained principals and administrators and school staff. the first response kennedy to call 911. we have to figure out how to help the child and their family. we were able to dramatically drive down the number of arrests. with it took some soul-searching on our part to do that. many of you probably saw the recent data out of texas. i commend texas for having the courage to put the data out. you can see that over half the young people in texas get suspended or so -- or expelled during their educational career and 15% of the people go to school in texas are suspended or expelled 11 times while there are in school. the fact that 75% of african- american children are suspended or expelled in texas.

75% a special-education children are expelled. that is it right there. we have to challenge ourselves in every community to see how we can work in terms of private practices and not push students onto the street or in jail. peer juries and other approaches have to become the norm and not the exception and the attorney general and i will work hard to make that happen. kathleen sibelius' has been made toward a partner at hhs. we have a comprehensive -- we have a comprehensive set of resources on their website. please access of that. we are working closely with her to create school based health care clinics. we know if our children are not healthy and their emotional needs are not being met, they

will not be successful in school. we were pleased to get $95 million in grants to collect a couple of hundred more clinics at schools across the country. [applause] those clinics will help 1 million young people stay in school, get the support they need. we have another half of funding to go in 2013. in chicago, there were about two dozen health-care clinics. it was amazing to hear the stories when i visited them. they were -- the kids were dealing with horrific things at home and in the neighborhood. these are life-transforming opportunities. we're working very hard with kathleen sibelius around better access to early childhood education. there is no better investment we can make to get our 3 and 4 years old to off to a better

start. we will dramatically increase access to disadvantaged communities for children who are struggling to make sure that as high quality. this is so our children can enter kindergarten ready to read. we are working -- [applause] we are also working across agencies to make sure we have strong communities. we are trying to push very hard. we can have a strong community anywhere in this country if we don't have great schools at the heart of it. we cannot end cycles of poverty or cycles of violence if we don't have great schools. we continue to work very hard on prop agencies to work with the

most distressed communities. the kids can be safe in school but walking to and from school and their families have a support service they need to help them be successful. these are absolutely tough economic times. i wish it was much easier. this is just reality and it will not change tomorrow. we cannot let that stop our work or let that stop our collaboration. we cannot stop doing everything in our power collectively to give our nation's young people a chance to be successful. i grew up working on the south side of chicago in the inner city. there was no apparent who had -- there was no child's parent who had gone to college. i saw young people doing extraordinary things.

despite the immense challenges we face and despite the adult disfunction we see in washington, i am very hopeful. when we give our children will opportunities and real support and real guidance, they can do amazing things. we have to continue to work together in good times and tough times to make sure our children have the opportunity. i will take any questions you might have, thank you. [applause] i think there are a couple of microphones. fire away. >> i want to applaud you for all the things you listed that you are overseeing in your department. i am hoping you can add one more thing. the school districts such as the

one i come from that are trying to compete with the rest of the world by -- not making but encouraging and pressuring kids to take ap classis, geometry before their brain development has reached a place where they can understand those concepts, algebra in eighth grade. i know there are prodigies that can handle that but i think the majority of our kids cannot. they will sign up for these glasses by parent pressure and they don't really learn comprehend and retain. the study for the test and the move of. they are really not learning and therefore not being prepared in the world. they are also sharing adhd

prescription stimulants so they can stay up and study and do well. it is not for the high above for academic reasons. i am hoping you will oversee something in your department to stop that kind of competition because it is so counterproductive and it does a number on the kids' celtics' self esteem. they cannot do something that their brains won't be ready for a couple of years down the road. >> we don't want children sharing a prescription medicine. one thing i worry about in this country are the lack of access to high-quality opportunities. one thing i saw in chicago was a huge disconnect between the numbers of the white students take ap classes and the african- american and latino students taking the same class as.

we try to equalize opportunities. we were able to double the number of students taking and a passap class is. if we did that in four years, our minority students were not twice as smart. we were simply creating an opportunity that did not exist. the lack of opportunity to take these college look class's is a great hindrance. i want to do that in a competitive way and i want college opportunities for students to take college look losses on a college campus or at a community college to feel they can be a part of that environment. many of first-generation college growers need to be comfortable and confident in a higher education learning environment. it is a balancing act.

far too many young people do not have access to rigorous curriculum, and that is something we need to work on. [applause] >> when their brain is at the proper level of the development. >> then let's get their brains going up three and four years old so they are ready. >> i am a professor at the university of southern california. i have a two-part question. the first is that there has been dramatic reductions overall in school violence issues since the mid 1990's. many of us to attribute that to the policy efforts done in title iv. the funding has been eliminated, and many states, such as california, use the survey to collect that school climate

data do not have it anymore. will that be put into their reauthorization of school climate issues? that is my first question. we hope so. the second question has to do with the fact that we have been at war for 10 years and there are two million kids who have had parents serving in iraq and afghanistan. we know they are suffering and that the schools are also seeing the effects in the academic and social climate. are there plans to actually include support for those kids and families in public schools? >> to great questions. let me take the second one first. i charges spend a disproportionate amount of my time at schools on military bases come around military bases, where you have been in members who have been deployed not once but four, five, six, seven, eight times.

i try not to be gone more than one or two nights. i spoke to one girl whose father had been gone for more than one year. she was not sure when he would come back. whenever we can do to be helpful to these children, that is the least we can do for our troops. it is amazing as i talk to people who are deployed and when i asked what i can do to be helpful, they just want us to help take care of their children. this is one where collectively there is a level of trauma, a level of fear, a level of worry that we have not seen in a long time. whenever we can do in terms of mental health services, school- based, community-based, keep them focused and working. some children have both parents are deployed and are being raised by a grandparent, aunt, or ogle. whatever we can do collectively

-- aunt, or uncle. we need to give them the skills to stay resilience. we need to put resources behind that. we're trying to work very closely with military families. on your first question, in fiscal year to a dozen 11, agreed to a big hit and we have a very significant budget request around save and help the students in schools for fiscal year 2012. this is a very tough budget climate and we are pushing congress to do the right thing. i cannot promise we will get a significant increase. the type of school surveys done in california, we did them in call -- in chicago. asking students if they are safe. asking teachers. they are always lagging indicators, but these are leading indicators when trends are going the right way. those trends are now going south and i get worried.

if you look at the blueprint for reauthorization, we emphasize this in a big way and the survey is a big piece of that. we are asking for $265 million, and i do not know if we would get that are not. if children are not saved, they cannot learn. if they cannot see the blackboard, they cannot learn. if they are not fed, they cannot learn. there are fundamental building blocks that we need to put in place. if we do not do those things, we will never get them to where we need them to be academically. this will continue despite the tough times to be a huge issue. the california budget situation is devastating, and we try to do what we can help it. >> thank you. compaq [applause] -- thank you. [applause] >> thank you for the opportunity

to ask questions. i am a safe school, how the student coordinator and i appreciate what you're saying about the importance of working conditions. state schools, health the students is a successful partnership and you spoke about some of the new partnerships that you are looking at linking. this is a partnership with a 12- year history. i have heard rumors that there are concerns that it will not be continuing and i am interested in hearing about the department of education commitment to the program. >> we want to continue everything making a difference in students' lives. increasing graduation rates, reducing discipline ways, increasing attendance, this all has to be taken to scale and do more of if it is working. queenie to not just maintain that commitment, but increase commitments where we can.

i will take one last question. >> my name is 18 now. my question to you is i travel across the country and i speak to schools in rural communities and very affluent communities. the same question always comes up. how are they dealing from the top to the bottom regarding bullying? there are issues from the legal system that filters down into the schools and half the time the superintendents to not know what is going on and we expect our schools to take care of these situations. i find one school district doing something amazing, but then in a different community, they do not even know what to do, so i find it very hard. >> there is not money is the answer, which is a huge challenge in opportunities in education. for all the problems we face,

there are examples for extraordinary success, but we do not do a good job taking those things to scale. we have tried to do things to address it. the website i talked about where we can consolidate all of the best practices where we are making a difference to make that transparent, if that program is not on our website, please make sure it is to get the word out. we try to put out very clear guidance from the office of civil rights which has been much more active than it has been, frankly, in a long time. that is leading to better policies in states around the country in the policies the to translate into practice at the district and school level. we continue to push very hard there and we will do that. we have hosted a number of a bullying summits. we have the first anti-bullying summon up the white house. we want to draw attention to this if our children are not

safe and they are worried about cyber bullying and bullying, they cannot learn. if there are things we need to do more of a, let us know. we're trying to do everything we can to get the word out and making sure children are growing up in a climate free of fear so they can concentrate academically. thank you for the hard work. thank you for the difference to make around the country. thank you for having me today. [applause] >> let's get a round of applause to arne duncan. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> a look at some upcoming programs on the c-span networks. another debate from ralph nader and the center for the study of responsive law. and 6:00 p.m. eastern, whether there should be a financial transaction tax on stocks, derivatives, and other financial instruments. senior retired military officers and the former oil ceo per dissipate in a simulated destruction of the global oil despite -- supply. it includes the former head of shell oil in the former director of national intelligence, dennis blair. this is part of the national summit on energy security and hosted by the group securing

america's energy future. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. with the senate adjourned, you can watch "but tv" prime-time all month. -- "booktv." a test of the will and faith in world war i . carl peterson on her book, "black got some." -- "black gotham." "booktv" primetime all this month on c-span2. >> republican candidates are drying in iowa for grass-roots politics. starting on thursday, we will interview the candidates can take your phone calls about politics. saturday, we will go to the iowa straw poll where three of the past five winners have gone on to win the iowa caucus.

"road to the white house" in iowa this week on c-span. next, the man who trained the navy seals who stormed osama bin laden's qaeda in pakistan. but this is from a recent aspen institute security forum. >> great to be here in aspen. it is great to be here instead of afghanistan. that reminds me that it is better to be in afghanistan than washington, d.c., especially right now. when he was a little boy, he would go swimming with his knife to kill fish. that is if you believe

everything that you read in "the to, press people he made his first wet suit out of scraps of rubber. -- everything you read in "the tacoma press." "tacoma plays it's part in osama bin laden raid." or "tacoma mom gushes in son's role in finding osama bin laden ." [applause] way. beautiful, by the he told her nothing. he hadn't called her for four days. he called her to tell her when his retirement ceremony would be taking place. it occurred. it was successful. and now we are on to today.

well, we are hoping to get a bit more than that from him tonight, but i will tell you right off of the bat that amaral olson has had a successful career as a seal because he has kept his mouth shut. this is how far i got in advance. in an off the record session, what he said in that session, i started to talk about drone attacks. and he asked, "are you talking about unattributed explosions?" the idea that i could take down a navy seal, i am good, but i am not that good. he has had an extraordinary career, and i hope we can hear a lot about it, and i know he will talk as much as he can about the osama bin laden raid and the

future of special ops. when you think back in the last 10 years and how special operations has changed, grown, 32,010 years ago and more than 60,000 now and growing. admiral olson, i will turn it over to you. if you want to just transition into the raid without me trying harder, please do. thank you. >> i appreciate the opportunity to be here. many of you are former colleagues and friends, so it is good to be with you. i cannot hear from washington. i am here from tampa, fla., which is a good place to escape away from in the summer to come to colorado. i am glad to be with you. we have a great deal of respect in you.

when i found ready ready moderator, i was pleased. >> that is why you came. >> also because of the nature of the forum and who is here. i am going to be leaving the service here before too long and as i backed out, i do want to take the opportunity to share with you some of what i think america should know about the special operations community that it has built over the last 25 years, where it fits in, what it does, and how we see the world of the future and how we fit in. i want this to be a conversation about that. please scratch in as deep as you want on any of that. up front, i want to say that this is a fantastic community. it has grown and expanded its

capabilities. it is a microcosm of the department of defense. the u.s. special ops community is army, navy, marine corps, government, a civilian, contractor, from the tropics, to the arctic, to space, in a mission set that is much more broad than you can imagine. most people when they hear about the special operations community, and they have either been exposed to a book, a movie, or a headline about something spectacular, but it is a far more nuanced community than that. what they do today in 65 countries around the world, on it is a pretty good story as well. when we do talk about this new normal, this future world that we anticipate living in over the next few decades, the special

operations community is well suited to that. >> i will talk about the raid, but not much. the department of defense has not knowledge to the participation of any particular unit or any particular individual in that raid, and i respect that. i think secretary gates and chairman mullen in their statements that we have already spoken at to much about it. i will not get into tactical details and i will not break faith with my own community. now or ever, in terms of what it would mean it to them to talk to much about this. for the special locks community, the 15 minutes of fame lasted 14 minutes too long and they really just want to get back into the shadows and do what they came in to do. i accepted this invitation before the raid occurred, so

that was not a part of the original plan. >> i know you do not want to of knowledge this, but you, that evening, you work with leon panetta at cia. if you could talk just a little bit about whether it is your pride, the trauma of watching that, can you talk about it in those terms? >> i will make five points, i think. first, this would not have been as successful if not for the interagency cooperation that has occurred over the last few years. this was the intelligence community and the military operational community coming together in a powerful, unprecedented way, at least in modern history, so that when it came to the president for a decision, he had enough confidence that the intelligence

piece of this was a great in the military capabilities were great and that this was being presented to him as one team or two parallel efforts brought together in the end. i do not think that would have been possible more than a few years ago. the operations of recent years have caused second and third generation contact between the intelligence agencies and special operations community and those who work together in the field as youngsters are now working together in headquarters with the barriers between the organizations completely torn down. this is a very positive thing and one we can be proud of. two, it would not have been possible without the military joint community with services. interoperable being able to work together comfortably with each other. i do not mean just inside the special ops community, but all

organizations on the fringe in supporting this who had to flow into the river without trauma in order to bring all of this together at a very high level. third, and this will sound very parochial, but it would not have been possible had the nation not created its special lops community 25 years ago. the decisions, in my view, that led to the real success were not made this year or last year but 12-15 years ago. the investments in the equipment, night vision compatibility in the cockpits, experimental aircraft, the people in this mission work, for the most part, 12, 15, 17 years in service and became through training programs that build up over time. that is my nation -- message to

other nations. if they want this capability in 15 years, they better start now. we started it 25 years ago in the aftermath of a failed attempt by this nation to put a ground force and helicopters and fly them in a hostile environment. it was an operation that ended in disaster in a place now known as desert i in tehran. fourth, i would say that this is not a failure of desert 1, fast forward to blackrock down, fast forward -- black hawk down, then to bin laden. there were thousands of operations of this nature conducted in 2010 alone. this is now routine. every night.

dozens of times. or at least a dozen-ish. force is getting in a helicopter fly against a target to do something, but if anything to knock on a door and invite someone to give something up. this has become habit. for the forces that participated in this operation from a have celebrated their greatest successes together and have mourned their most severe losses together over the last few years, so there is a respect in this community born out of the routine ness of these operations. it was successful because nobody talked about it. nobody talked about it before, and we want to preserve this capability, we should not talk about a doctor.

i mean in terms of the people, tactics, techniques, the advanced technologies, a sort of how it all came together. we can give that up by talking about it too much. if i was al qaeda, i would be paying close attention to it who was talking and what they're saying. i do not want to be the example of the guy who talks too much. coxa do not think there's any danger of that so far. >> i don't think there's any dange of that. >> i just ask that we respect that. >> can you talk about from your point of view it that evening? whenever you say about the routine and how often you do this, this was different. this was osama bin laden. from your perspective what you can talk about and for those

highly trained teams, how do overcome that? hard to overcome the fact that this is the big one? >> the excitement was not at the team level, but way above the team level. the tactics were routine. these people do it all the time. if you use the rough number of one dozen missions, 11 went left and one went right. for the people involved, it was another mission on another target. they understood it was a more important target, but they are always trying to do this the best they can. they want to do this on the best they can. most of the excitement was around the edges. it was the strategic value of this in what might happen to the national prestige should it go wrong and how we talk about this it goes right. it was all of that. >> there were lessons learned from desert i. one of those lessons was to have

backup helicopters, correct? what other lessons did you gather from desert i that was used in this? >> that was 31 years ago. >> or from black hawk down or anything else over the years. >> this is not a force that sits on the second deck of the fire station waiting for the bell to ring every bit 15 years. every day, they are better than the day before. we do raise our lessons back to that event, but back to what we did last night. i do not mean to give a lame answer, but it is really not lessons learned from baclac,kk hawk down but after 10 years in afghanistan. >> secretary panetta was talking

about the defeat of al qaeda in the u.s. being a mere "strategic defeat" of al qaeda. they were saying about al qaeda is almost done in pakistan. your thoughts on that? >> "almost" is not good enough. i think that we jabbed away for several years and we got them winded and bloody, but they are still fighting. the arab spring was a roundhouse that knocked the wind out of them. it took away the ideological message that you need violence to overthrow a government. there were more government overthrown in the first half of this year than they had overthrown in their entire existence.

i think they lost steam. and teh death of bin laden was the uppercut to the jaw. the had a succession plan in place, but it was not done quickly. we have to watch this very carefully to see what al qaeda becomes. i do believe that al qaeda is a version one. know and is it -- version 1.0 and near it's end. i'm concerned about what al qaeda 2.0 will be. i think it will become westernized, dual passport holders, more and emergent leaders in more places over time. i think they are refining their message against difficulties in a way that will appear to a broader audience.

>> if you say al qaeda 1.0, do we really understand what the next generation fo al qaeda will be? no one knew 10 years ago that someone was going to fly airplanes into buildings, so when you think about that and you think about of the possibilities and what will happen, what is your greatest fear, a challenge, how to get at that? >> i will not say what my greatest fear is, because they may be taking notes and i do not want them to act out my greatest fear. i do think that they will continue to need places to operate from. they will continue to need sanctuary. they will go where the sanctuary is, where they are under- governed, where airports are less secure, where borders are more porous, and in order for

them to survive in the way they want to come on to be a trans- national organization, they will have to pursue that in order to have a freedom of movement to me the way that, they will have tod a way to get through the increasing security. and this has been established to keep them from doing this. we will see how quickly that they learn these lessons. >> do you sense any differences with zawahiri, does he not know what he is doing yet? >> he is just not as charismatic, so he has not asserted the leadership role. he may have said that he will not be that. this is my question about what they will be in the next version.

>> let's go back to special operations. tell me about the direction from 10 years ago, with the training, and the stress on the force as well. >> of the force, i will throw some numbers that you, and you may or may not care. this is about 32,000, and this is a significant force. this command is larger than the u.s. coast guard, about the size of the canadian defense forces. there are about 20,000 people who have careers in special operations and they have volunteered several times and have been selected with what ever identifies them as a special operations career. we depend on this very heavily,

with the expertise that becomes quite important to us. i am on record, four years ago, saying that we should grow about 3% a year to meet the growing needs but not 5 percent per year, because we may lose our souls along the way. we do grow up together and almost everyone i worked with, i have known for 15 years. it is very important to have the maturity of action. our budget is grown, and the budget is about tripled. this is about a $10 million command. this is 1.6%. the service is invested by about 1.6%.

this is a special operations force of the budget, and we frankly feel that we are a good deal. the overseas deployments have quadrupled. we have about 13,000 members deployed on any given day. if there is some total with the air force marine corps, we are deployed every day at a much higher rate. we are designed to be this, without airfields' or gymnasiums, or that kind of thing. we are designed to be deployed because we live in these services. but this does create pressure of time for us and we are starting to see this. i said that we began to fray around the edges, but we're

asking a lot of our people, a lot of the families and there is no solution. and even if or when we began to wind down, in the current campaigns, 100,000 people came out of iraq before the special operations came out and of the 30,000 people announce to come out of afghanistan, none of them will be special operations. as they began to come out, and we cover the world with the other 15%. as we begin to come out at the same time, there'll be a lot of stuff to catch up on. this force is not going to be standing around with their hands in their pockets any time soon. and if we are asking anyone to

leave their home base in afghanistan or train with this reluctance, they are still away from home. and we are asking a lot from our families as well. we are programmed to go a little bit more, and we will be able to reduce that pressure. >> it is clear from the drawdown plan is that the president has in afghanistan, special operations forces will not be coming out during the drawdown. the demand will be extraordinary. going forward, we will be mindful that if the nation is threatened, the best offense is delivering targeted surgical freshen -- targeted at surgical pressure. the united states is headed for a position of counter-

terrorism, rather than large, conventional army. from my vantage point, we have the counterinsurgency, which has many soldiers, very large budgets, and over the last few months in washington, with that perspective, it is clear that they do not talk about this very much. they may be doing this in certain regions in afghanistan. this means, back at you. the counter-terrorism approach. the believe that this will be the future, and if so, how do we balance the american military. >> the counter-terrorism approach is a flawed concept, and this idea of just being able to be over the horizon and just springing in, chopping off

the heads, this does not really worked. i do not mean to sound strange. i am beginning to think about this as the yen and the gang. this is the counter-terrorism capability. you are all tune in to this. and the gang is the engagement. most days, 60 countries around the world, we are engaged with long-term relationships, gaining an understanding of the micro region, understanding the histories and we are learning about the black markets, and we are learning about how things really happen in those places. if you do not know this you cannot be an effective counter terrorist force. you have to know who the good guys are. all of this is the counter terrorist networks.

this is a network that is human. and we do both sides. we do the yen and the yang, and you cannot be a counter- terrorism force if you are not partnered at some level. and you cannot be the counter- terrorism -- and these two are coming together. they are demonstrated in afghanistan for the counter- terrorism line of operations and the engagement line of operations, the village to building operations. trying to return the neighborhoods to the neighbors. these are both led by special operations forces. the counter-terrorism people will find out to the special operations people are. they will find out who is in that area and who will coach them through what the stakes.

otherwise i am running around in the dark. i am now showing this slide, the photograph of the world at night, when the lights on somewhere in the world. pre 911 thinking that the strategical. of the earth was the place where all of the lights were at, with the friends and enemies all within this area. but after this this is much farther south. and we have found ourselves relatively and prepared to operate in these areas. it is essential that we do. we have the military relationships with many of these countries and we have to build those. i think this is it. these other countries that do

not want a brigade of infantry to come to their country. they want a handful of people who can give them some help. this is much better, if other nations also its own problems. and there is some way to help them do this. >> one last question on afghanistan. what if we did not have the former operating basis, and what if this was strictly counter- terrorism. what would happen. >> the strategy of clear transition is a valid strategy, but this takes forces to clear, and you cannot clear this with a small teams. it takes the forces that you cannot hold with small teams and you cannot build, unilaterally.

you cannot clear this if you are unable to hold. and so, this requires a broader force with a counter-terrorism force, from a micro post. i think that we could be very effective in identifying the real bad guys, conducting these operations against them. but this does not mean that you are keeping the bad guys from occupying space. i am not an expert on how much force that it takes to do this. >> this is a lot. >> somewhere around the counter- terrorism capabilities. >> we will do a quick around the world in terms of the other hot spots and we will start with yemen. and what you see there. i know that you will not talk about special operations, but i

have this on good authority, not from him, obviously. and what you can say about the threat from al qaeda. >> if you -- >> if you looked into the time square, the detroit underwear bomber, the teenager in portland and the torn cartridges, and these attacks on the united states, these cannot be traced back to where the lights are, these go to yemen and somalia, and you hear about the increasing presence of al qaeda. and these become the new safe havens. these are wide open and the training camps can develop, and things can be smuggled out there. in and out.

i think this is an increasing area of concern. back in my special operations role, i would say as proud as we are of the ability to respond to this sounds, we are at least doing this ahead of the sound of guns, to prevent this from occurring by getting the ability to coach other people. so we do not have such a large presence. i do not think anyone wants to open a third front in the war on terror. we could solve these problems with a much smaller force. it is much to our advantage to do this. >> a little bit more on yemen. the operations forces training, i am not certain, unless they were dressed as blonde, blue- eyed guys with scruff ybeards.

i could be wrong. why don't we talk about any of this? do you think that yemen has been cooperative? why do we have to be secretive about this, constantly. >> i will say that if you have seen how one country treats how america treats the presence of america, you see others. mostly, we will yield to another nation's sensitivity. i had a great conversation with the head of the country's military and said, we could still this to any level of visibility. we could be from invisible to high profile. he said, low profile is good. he said, invisible. he wanted the intelligence agents to know that we were in

his country, and that he was working with the american forces. this is all very delicately done. with a simple question, why don't we talk more about this? in many cases, the access depends on the ability to not talk about this. >> a lot of people have reported on the raid after the bin laden here one man gothre away. talk about that. this is -- i'm sure this is -- [laughter] and if you will, talk about the threat from him. i think a lot of reporters have been told that he is considered one of the biggest threats to the united states.

and the interest overseas. is this simply because he knows the american soft spots and understands that culture, understanding that there are lost in the united states -- that do not prohibit us. talk about this threat and what it means, exactly, why he is such a huge threat. this is not about huge catastrophic attacks, this is about the home grown attacks. >> he is very savvy, and he knows how to hide from us very well. despite the fact that he is communicating with his own people very well, he has a manuscript in the english language, and he has dueled passports.

he understands us, and as i look forward, i see fewer cave dwellers, if you will. >> this is making us feel good. >> kangyo elaborate a tiny bit on this. a lot of people want to kill us, and a lot of people may be inspired by going after americans. >> success brings more success. he is charismatic and he has lived in the united states, having at least attempted some things that got farther along, and you start to attract like-

minded thinkers, and the more successful that he is, the more successful that he will be. >> the connection between somalia and yemen, it seems like they're planning operations, going there for the soldiers. >> i think more training is taking place in somalia and yemen, and they will be moving there soon after. there is an invisible bridge between them. >> can you talk about this? i am happy -- leslie stahl, can you try? i would love to open this up to questions. perfect. and can everybody accept leslie -- before they ask a question.

>> you had talked about the dozen missions. i don't think we realized how many missions your forces are performing. so often. do you go and you talk about how the lessons learned, 31 years ago, these were incorporated a long time ago. are these missions planned the same way with the helicopters, with that much care in each case. can you talk about these thousands of missions? >> the different forces are selected according to the mission needs. there is almost a quick reaction force. if things go badly. there is medical capability on

call, should things go badly, and there are the plans about what to do with the people that you capture. i do not mean to overstate this, but this is conducted from a template that is well rehearsed. we deviate from this based on the priority of the targets, what it takes to get there and what they expect to see when they arrive. this happens multiple times per night. >> frequent raids into pakistan? >> i am clear about this, there are not frequent raids into pakistan. >> thank you for your service. i have the honor to serve my country as the ambassador to denmark.

what occurred to me is that these were very highly educated , dedicated, could not wait to see action. can you give us more background about who they are, and it -- what do you do that gets them so committed, and so wonderful and dedicated to what they do? >> they come to us this way but we will just build on this. those to judge america based on the youth that they see do not see who i see. they are doing what they came here to do, they are innovative, tenacious, and i think that we can describe them all as problem solvers and they are in an environment that suits them

well, once they get through -- once they cross the bed of hot coals. if they get into any of the specialized units. we are about 30% college graduates in the listed community. we average about 30 years old, in the special forces, and the platoon's based on the infantry platoons that have about 20. about 70% married as opposed to the rest of the force, which is 30% married. the data will show you that they are more intelligent and more determined, they have gone through more filters to do what they do, and we just find, the retention rates, if you take all the people who could choose to get out or stay in, 82% are

choosing to stay in and this is extraordinarily high. the army in the navy in the air force and the marine corps -- we got the marine corps team about five years ago, and now we can be proud of what they are doing. i am not saying that i am proud of everyone every day, but at the end of every month, this is a force to be incredibly proud of. people ask me what my job is like and i say -- i am kind of saying this for the first time. there is a lot of warlord management. i have an army commander and a navy commander, the marine corps commander and they all have their own tribes.

and at the end of the day -- at the end of the day it is pretty good but tough to put together. there are healthy rivalries and like-minded people. this is like george steinbrenner, 10 years ago. if you are able to get the right people and get them good training, you will be the winner of a lot of games, and this is what a special operations commander does. >> what do you see in the community after 10 years. retention is fantastic but has divorce and suicide been reduced? how was this manifesting itself? >> this is less up in those than the rest of the force.

the response lacks the data, but does not lack the reality and the data does not collect what is very important to us in every case. subordinates are being asked about their bosses. wives are being asked about their husbands, children about their fathers to understand what this is. we see a lot of separation's short of divorce. people who are too busy to get divorced. were, as a matter of convenience, they decide that they will not live together but the spouse will still use the exchange and the medical. i am not panic about this but i do want to be ahead of this and i want to be proactive. my sense is that we are 10 years into this, and about 60% of the

force has come in sense 9/11. they were inspired to come in, to come serve with us. and they knew that this would be difficult, but now they have done this for six or seven years, answering their own goals. they may see 10 more years of this ahead of them. this is an important time that we are in as we reach the 10 year anniversary of this, in a career where we hope everyone will stay for 20 years. we see people leave the community with below 82%, and what brought us down here is the nine years of service, with the enlisted men leaving, the officers from 2004 starting to leave, the majors and the sergeant's first class, because now they have the family, they

have other goals. so we have been sensing this and now, the question is what we will do about this. >> i suspect that this is hard being in special operations, and coming out afterward. and the adrenaline. do you have the adrenalin junkies that you have to watch? >> i think that you do. >> we will keep our eye on you, by the way. >> our people are risk managers by nature. we help them manage risk in the operational environment, but many of them are doing sports, extreme kinds of behavior on their own time and we don't discourage this at all. we think that living by your wits is is a good conditioning

experience. and we do see that kind of behavior and it has not manifest itself in these ways very often. we have one of our great marines killed doing base jumping in switzerland. this is jumping off a cliff with a parachute. we also have the guy who took third place in the old enough fighting championship, so we do see that kind of behavior but i don't think that this is especially risky. >> over here? >> hang on to the microphone. >> i am kent blackmar of the public transportation system. when you talk about being in the

ground, finding out who the bad guys are and who is legitimate and not legitimate with this instability in the middle east, how you go in there to know what is legitimate, and what groups you should be supporting? >> this is a very delicate thing and we depend on these people to do this. you have to earn your way into a position where you are one of the first people in, because it is easy to do the wrong thing. a couple of observers are good analysts, and they feel their way into this. and if you want to do something next january, don't tell us in december, tell us right now because it takes time, you can do counter-terrorism raids overnight, but it takes years to do -- to gain a sense of the place, and it is important for

us to be living by our wits. and i will quote one of my foreign counterparts, in a time of friction between our nation and his. he said, never let the politics of the day get in the way of a military relationship. we wish that we had never left and lost our contract -- contact, did not know who to call, and when you go somewhere where you can find the leaders, you just backed away from the country, for whatever reason. it is a delicate thing and we count on responsible people to do it. >> the question i have for you has to do with the kind of operation you are doing.

are the operations more like an osama bin laden operation, which is more complex? do you basically know where someone is and do get him and you get out? those the kinds of operations you are doing dozens of times a day? >> we are a phishing force. oftentimes, it is rapidly developing information. because you're living in a place -- somebody in that place tells you who is planning to set off an ied that day. so you run a raid that night, knock on his door, and capture him. that is the kind of thing i am talking about that happens over and over. >> you're talking about afghanistan. >> yes. i am talking about all in afghanistan.

we are not running missions like that in iraq. or around the world. we are advising and assisting. in many cases, we're providing meaningful assistance short of combating. we train counterparts. we tap them on the back as they go out on their missions and when they come back from the missions and get ready to go out again. >> hi, my name >> i was wondering if you could speaking little bit about the role of women in the special forces and where you see that role evolving in the future. perators within the special operations community. we don't have nearly enough and we're too late bringing them into what it is we have them doing. there are not female seals,

there are not female green berets and there are not female rangers are female marine special operators because the combat exclusion policy preventshat but we do have female information specialists, female civil affairs specialists we have created over the last year or so. it's a terrible name i know but we call check cultural support teams and these are teams of two to four women who are attached to a seal team or a green beret o.d.a., operational detachment, sort of in remote places in the middle of nowhere conducting female shores, leader meetings those areas. they are able to connect with half of the population that we weren't able to connect to previously. in the more kinetic side of it where they're not going on the operatiol ssion itself, but they're going on to the target after the target is secure, they're talking to the women, finding cell phones in places

where no man would ever find them, that kind of thing that is very helpful to us. and they're volunteering, we're selecting them, training them. not all of them make it through the training. and then we're getting them out of the door. we graduated 56 last week, all of whom will be in afghanistan by the end of august. >> ok, now this isn't classified, do you see a day when women are in the combat role with the seals? possible? like to see that happen? >> no, i would. i certainly think that as soon as policy permits it, we will be ready to go down that road. >> and you would go right up there and say yes, sir, they could do this? >> i don't think the idea to select g.i. jane and put her through seal training. but there are a number of things that a man and woman can do together that two guys can't, there are places they can go and just theay they present themselves. and i think female operators in

those roles are very important that will require very special women who are carefully selected and highly trained to do that. i don't think it's as important that they can do a lot of pushups. it's much more important sort of what they're made of and whether or not they have the courage and the intellectual agility to do that. >> thank you, sir. >> yes, sir. >> admiral, i'm going to switch lanes a little bit. could you give us an update, if there's an update to be given, with regards to piracy on the high seas and do i read less about it because i have you and your teams to thank, or things have settled down a little bit there? >> the big difference -- the reason you're hearing less about it is because countries

decided to group together to deal with policy. and there is a maritime task force that's international in nature that's patroling the area that's had some succes including deterrent affect. so i think there is less of that happening. also, the shipping industry itself has learned lessons, they've learned ere the safer routes are. they've learned techniques that will discourage pirates from boarding their ships. the pirates themselves now have to go further off the coast and it requires more sophisticated equipment and better training, et, etc. to do that. so i think we're just seeing piracy made harder for the pirates. and in the rare occasion where a ship is really seized underway, held captivet seas and special operations may the be part of the solution but a couple of times it has been. >> yes, sir? >> my name is gary letter.

question, the military is today mostly fighting people with bad ideas and so the question is, to what extent does our government misallocate resources in fighting idea with violence rather than fighting ideas with ideas? the military is uniquely positioned to help our government reprioritize if it thought that it should. so i'm curious to get your thoughts on that subject. >> i think mostly bad ideas are ones we don't agree with. [laughter] >> and they think the same thing about us. it is a reality that the department of defense has more mass and more money than any other organization in our government. we are more expeditionary than anybody can be. so sometimes i think the military takes on roles that in a perfect world would not be a

military solution i think, in many cases it's a battle of ideas, sort of escalates beyond simply an information campaign because it is a military -- it becomes a military operation, so i'm all in favor of other elements of our government becoming more expeditionary and being able to deal with those before it requires a military solution. i think that, also, in general, and back to a previous point, people know more about us than we know about tm. we're not very good in the initial bouts of a war of ideas. .

you think these special operations were mr. panetta will be going and the cia will have to resolve their relationships of the it will be more of a unified command? [laughter] >> i do not think so. [laughter] the authorities are very much different. if you look at the authorities under which the cia operations and those under which the military operation, there is a fuzzy area between them. if you are about to get on a subway in london, there is a sign that says "mind the gap." and what we have here is a gap. it is special operations that

has evolved into filling that role the only recommendation of the 9/1 one operation that was not -- the 9/11 operation that was not enacted was the paramilitary operations in the united states. we needed to support that and others did not. but there is capability that we can contribute. at times, we do that. i think the relationship is really in a very good place now. i think the habits we've developed in working with each other are pretty good ones. i don't see why that wouldn't continue through the change of leadership. john petraeus is not the former military guy to run c.i.a., and director panetta is not the first -- secreta panetta is not the first former c.i.a. guy

to run the department of defense. the fact they are doing it at the same time is understandable. but this is a great working relationship. >> thank you so much. i want to ask you -- [applause] hang on just one second. you can all stand up in a second. i just want to ask you one last time, just for your mom, what it was like sitting thereatching when you figured you had him, when jeronimo was gone. what went through your mind as you are closing your career, this great success you had. just keep thinking of your mom. we'll send her the transcript right away. she's probably home streaming the video. >> for the record, my mother was told by a lot of other people, and i still haven't talked to my mother about that. i think i am not welcome in

takoma -- actually, i am -- but i have to tell a story about someone who asked me why i reallyike mexican food. and i said, where did you hear that i like mexican food? they said, well, we saw you were a taco man. if you read tacomen, you get "tack oman." enough about that. ok. [laughter] . this is when you are thinking -- at the moment we knew that one was dead, my thought was, what's the next item on the check list. it is. i mean, obviously you're pleased

, but i think anybody in this businesshis long is conditioned to understand the very next thing can go wrong. are we going to get anybody hurt? what equipment are we leaving behind? so on and so forth. >> and as your mother said also in this article, everyone should appreciate someone who spends their entire career stephanie rawlings-blaking the rest -- [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> thank y very much.

>> later this evening, a debate from ralph nader and the city for responsible law on whether there should be a financial transaction tax it would be on trades of stocks, drove a bus, currencies, and other financial instruments. -- -- derivatives, currencies, and other financial instruments. then there is a simulated destruction of the world oil supply. this is part of the national summit on energy security. you will see it tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> seen as a testing ground for presidential hopefuls a republican candidates are gathering in iowa for grass- roots politics. we will interview the candidates and take your phone calls about politics. then we will go to aims for the

iowa straw poll. the past five winners have gone on to win the iowa caucus. two have won the presidency. road to the white house in iowa this week on c-span. >> next, a house hearing on tracking child deaths from maltreatment. such deaths are said to be under reported and often go unrecognized. this is one hour and 25 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> the hearing will now come to

order. before we began, i would like to yield to the chairman of the ways and means committee, dave camp, who asked that the report from gao, which is the basis of our hearing, the commission and the first place. he is a long chain been of these matters regarding children. >> think you very much, chairman davis. i want to thank you very much for being here today and a special thank you to gao for completing this report on neglect and abuse of children. having gotten a little bit of what the report may say, i understand that we believe the reality is even more dramatic than the initial estimates we were getting. the purpose of this hearing, obviously, is to focus on child deaths due to maltreatment, abuse, neglect, or however you want to describe it, and what government policies might be able to be addressed to try to

deal with this very critical issue. i want to thank all of our witnesses here, at the mirror, especially you for highlighting a, especially yourin for highlighting this in a very positive way. thank you very much. >> with that, we will return to regular order and thank the distinguished gentleman from minnesota for yielding. this is a somewhat historic hearing in a number of ways. the topic is important, but for those of us who grew up in black and white cathode ray tubes, this is could be a technically challenging experience today.

i appreciate all the witnesses who have come here today, all of the concerned advocates from many strains of thought with one common concern. when children die from maltreatment, it makes international headlines, as in the cayley anthony case. unfortunately, the transience of the hype and passing interest of the population realize a much steeper challenge. sometimes, the death of a child from maltreatment gets attention due to the shocking treatment while alive. a 13-year-old indiana boy was killed in 2009 after years of abuse, including being held in a dog cage. he wrote letters about how he wondered whether anybody would check on him. he wrote why nobody like him, particularly by his family.

it is difficult to comprehend the depths of the sadness that this boy expressed in his short life. some incidents do not hit the headlines at all. it is hard to know which child deaths are more tragic, those we know about or those we do not. our job is to make sure that all deaths of children do to maltreatment are recorded so that we can learn from all of them and use them to work with state and local partners to avoid more of these tragedies in the future. our job today's to be a voice for the voiceless, especially those children whose deaths are missing from official dated today. 1770 children died in 2008. but we will learn that that official data understates the total number of children who die for numerous reasons each year. gao indicates that 24 states

only report the deaths of children with previous contact with a child welfare agency. another agency found that agency records undercounted the number by 26%. we welcome your range of experts today who will help us to understand how we currently account the number of children who die each year and to identify the flaws in the current system. we can talk about how these systems can be improved and talk about how to better protect these children, which is our ultimate goal. the gao report is being released today and is the backstop of the testimony this morning. we welcome experts from the broader community who have worked for years to prevent child deaths due to maltreatment. we have the spokesperson for the national coalition to end

child and we thank them for their commitment for protecting children from further abuse and neglect. in the time that we have worked together, doggett and i have had a commitment to correcting broken information processes, removing obstacles and silos, and continue to hold hearings like this to identify constraints that prevent the service providers or the care givers from doing their very critical job. without objection, each member will have an opportunity to submit a written statement and included in the record at this point. now i would like to yield two mr. doggett for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chair. each weekend that my wife and bair back in texas, we tried to devote a little time to our three preschool granddaughters. the joy of being with them,

their growth, they're learning, their creativity, and also their innocence and vulnerability are in such contrast in a home where they're surrounded by love and what we see displayed on national tv with the abuse and deaths of too many young children. so we are conducting a bipartisan expression of what we can do about the gap between the many children in our country who are surrounded by loving and supporting families and those who are not. i think we recognize that the death of even one child due to abuse and neglect is just too many. we are aware that there are so many children across the country to lose their lives or are permanently scarred by abuse from a caretaker. we know that there are many reasons why this happens. but the goal of today's hearing must be to improve our understanding of these causes

and what we can do to prevent this kind of maltreatment of children can certainly, poverty, teenage parenting, substance abuse, and mental health challenges are among the considerations. we have to ensure that we do not make matters worse than they are today by slashing services to chou protection, even though there are many gaps to the services. nor can we afford a wider safety net for our families. to cut programs that support struggling families in tough economic times is the very definition of a penny wise and pound foolish. it is a choice that our children could pay for with their lives. regrettably, the lives of children have not always got in the top party. they are not necessarily, despite the full house today and the many effective advocates for

here, the best lobbied force in the country. in my home state of texas, the legislature concluded with a 40% cut, actually more than 40% cut in certain child abuse prevention programs even though my homestead of texas has one of the highest rates of child abuse, deaths, and neglect in the country. the block grant program provides funding that is important in child protective services. i am also concerned that the child welfare programs that we studied in our last committee hearings, as well as the tanner program, which is important in some any states for providing assistance to low-income families, those are about to expire. we hopefully, as a result of the work of this committee, can come up with bipartisan

legislation. i recently filed a legislation concerning the tanner supplemental grants, which were part of the original 1996 law that are very important in texas and 15 other states in providing services. i hope that come out of today's hearing, we can gain more insight from our expert witnesses and that come out of this, we can come up with effective legislation to respond to some of these matters that concern all this so deeply. >> thank you very much. before we move on, i would like to remind older witnesses to limit their oral statements to five minutes. all of your statements will be entered into the record. we will allow more time for discussion and questions. in our panel this morning, we will be hearing from cave brown

tunie, theresaamara covington, michael pettipetit, e burstain. miss brown, please proceed with your opening statement. >> members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here to discuss this very important topic of child deaths due to maltreatment. my remarks are based on the d.o.a. report released today. i plan to cover three issues, the number children who die from

maltreatment, the state reporting challenges, and hhs assistance mistakes. first, on the number of child deaths. every year, children in the united states die after being physically abused, severely neglected, or otherwise maltreated. frito-lay, at the hands of their parents or other trusted -- frequently, at the hands of their parents or other trusted caregivers. we know that there were at least 1770 deaths in 2009. but this is likely an undercount. all of these state agencies reported only those cases that were known to them. yet these agents is do not necessarily know about all children who die from maltreatment. some children may not have been previously maltreated were there

earlier treatment may not have been reported. -- or their earlier treatment may not have been reported. law enforcement agencies, medical examiners, coroners, or help departments -- or health departments been we have combined information from several of these sources and found that, using the child state welfare records alone undercounted known fatalities 65%. 55% to si understanding the numbers and circumstances surrounding child fatalities from maltreatment can help important prevention efforts. hhs prepares annual reports that include a wealth of information on the children who have died,

the perpetrators, and many other factors. however, we found that hhs does not include all of the potential useful information it collects in its report. in addition, state and local multi-disciplinary child deaths -- with an eye to improving investigation, services, and prevention. these teams, found in all but one state, have reduced that can provide richard detail in each case. many states are now submitting data from these reports to the hhs-funded national child death review center. the center is beginning to analyze the data related to fatalities from maltreatment pin states face multiple challenges that make it difficult to collect and report data. for example, with a definitive evidence, it can be

difficult to determine that a child's death was caused by maltreatment rather than natural causes. resources are limited for autopsies and other tests which can be expensive. officials investigating fatalities may have different skills, training command experience and coordination and data-sharing across various agencies and jurisdictions may be hindered by concerns about privacy for confidentiality requirements or by differing goals in cultures. on my third point, hhs provides a variety of technical assistance to states to help improve the data that the report. however, in our survey consisted officials asked for additional assistance on collecting child fatality data. we have made recommendations to hhs related to these and other issues.

any child deaths from maltreatment is distressing because it involves a failure on the part of the adults responsible for protecting them. politicians and practitioners rely on data of these tragic deaths and to learn from them to prevent other deaths. without improving upon and better sharing this data, we lose precious opportunity to protect our children. this concludes my prepared statement. i am happy to prinanswer any question. >> miss tunie? >> good morning, chairman davis and ranking member doggett and members of the subcommittee. a lot of people know me as dr. melinda as the doctor on "law- and-order." but i am here today in my

concern for the deaths of children. the coalition is made of five national organizations that can together over a common concern for the growing number of child abuse and neglect deaths in the united states. those organizations are the national association of social workers, the national children's alliance, the national district attorneys association, every child matters education fund, and the national center for child death review. i am honored to be able to speak to you today. on "law and order" we investigate fictional story lines, but nothing compares to the real and tragic cases that we hear about with increasing regulated -- increasing regularity. cayley anthony in florida, martel appears in new york, and the gruesome story of -- since

becoming the coalition spokesperson, i have learned about the thousands of american children dying of the hands of those who are supposed to love and protect them and i'm here to say that the need for action is critical. unfortunately, the most startling truth about deaths from child abuse is how common it is. as we have heard and will hear today from the experts in this field, an estimated 2500 children die each year from abuse and neglect. that is seven children a day. it is not enough to fill said and when hearing about loss of innocent lives. -- to feel sad when hearing about loss of innocent lives. the have no voice to address the powers that be. the first step in ending child

abuse and neglect deaths is awareness of the problem, including the accurate collection of data regarding the number of circumstances of child deaths from maltreatment. we're all here today because chairman david kim, chairman jeff davis, and ranking member doggett and members of the subcommittee on human resources believe that this is an important issue and need deserves attention. on behalf of the coalition, i want to thank you for holding a hearing on child abuse and neglect fatalities. and for your efforts to bring an end to the preventable deaths of children like cayley, marcella and nubia in the united states. >> thank you. ms. covington. >> thank you, chairman davis, ranking member doggett, and members of the subcommittee. >> you might want to pull it

just a little bit closer. >> is the better? i serve as the director for the center for child death review. we assist states in improving their child death review processes. many come together to share case records, look at the facts in the deaths, and decide what they will do to prevent these deaths in the future. every state except idaho tried to review all child deaths at the state or community level. 39 states are submitting reports on all of the child deaths of the review. it is a compilation of the information shared by all of the agency's. the system collects data on the child, the care givers, the supervisors, the caregivers, and actions taken to prevent other

deaths. the report as 1800 data elements. as of today, we have 94,000 deaths in the system, of which 8.3% were due to child abuse and neglect. the gao report is right. we know that more children die of abuse and neglect than is reported. the cdc had funded a surveillance project in seven states. in an average year, michigan reported 16 child abuse death certificates. law enforcement's had 26 good child protective services had 40. when these sources were synthesized, it was 100 deaths a year. we compared them to the encamps data for the same year.

i agree with the did gao findings on some of the reasons for the under reporting could death due to neglect are especially under reported. most definitely happen when caregivers egregiously failed to protect children from hazards. children dying in bathtubs, in house fires, left in cars on hot days. they're different definitions of abuse. what mississippi might call conn might call an accident. states have different system. when the deaths are not well investigated, we do not really know what happened. on a positive note, we know that

when we tell them right and do reviews well, prevention happens. that is why it is so important that we review all of these deaths. i could describe all day the efforts implemented throughout the united states, some specific to your states include kentucky implementing fire processes for families. north dakota improved death reporting policies. tenn. developed evidence-based home visiting programs. texas is training alcee ps workers -- all cps workers on infant deaths. i agree with the gao recommendations to improve comprehensiveness, the quality and use of national data, and i look forward to being part of the solution working with others

to identify how we can share data to prevent these deaths. i also request that you require definitions in reporting. i ask that you call for national commission to further study this issue. our states also need additional resources. they need emergency help knowledge for child protection as resources are dwindling watch out for use it -- child abuse and neglect is increasing. other than the $600,000 in funds allocated for our resource center, there is no dedicated funding for states child death review or the reporting system. the private company recently offered to build our new software. later tonight, please think about the seven or eight or maybe 10 children who will have died today because someone who was supposed to talk them and at night killed them instead.

and then tomorrow, begin work on your committee to keep our children alive. thank you. >> thank you, miss covington. mr. petit. >> thank you for convening this hearing. i am president of every child matters education fund. i have been involved with child maltreatment fatalities for 40 years. despite great increases in our overall knowledge of child welfare, the child's situation has improved very little over that time. i was with the child welfare league of america for a number of years. we have the responsibility for child welfare and job protection. i am the author of a publication called "we can do better: child abuse deaths in america." i will speak specifically to the

town of these data. we believe the almost 1800 deaths a year are significantly lower. it is about five times the number of u.s. soldiers killed in two wars since the beginning of our study 0.80% of the children killed or under the age of four. black children were three times more likely to be killed. the vast majority of children are from low-income/low education families. of the 61 children randomly selected for our report, there were 51 children -- there were 400 children behind each one of these pictures only one was killed with a knife or gun. the other 50 were beaten to death.

there are too many troubled families and too few social workers and too little community support. too few of these states are ethically -- are adequately supplied with resources. some states appear to spend five times more than others on child protection. there is a lack of acceptance in standard definitions. nearly 3 million reports a year and preventable deaths are inevitable when we are drawing from such a large pool of all marble children. a major factor is a lack of knowledge about the size and scope of the problem. we hope you will examine laws and make modifications in them.

they shield the press and public officials from shortcomings. we made recommendations in 2009. 100 job protection experts met for a couple of days. i have had extensive personal experience in dealing with child fatalities where did it interfered with the protection of the child. we had a little girl that was presented to us by her family at 5:00 p.m. on a friday afternoon. our social worker called a local mental health center and said is the father of this child taking his medications? we know he is a mentally ill individual. when you not taking the medication, they said, we will not share that information with due been there are confidentially issues with the

parent. later that evening, that child was placed in a hot oven. i am sad to say that, in most communities, there is not a sharing of knowledge. in many instances, the civil service, the civil legal protection for children is not enough. the criminal justice system needs to be brought into play and we need to afford more progress in that. but me say in my remaining moments that the appearance and development of national standards in this area is critical. these children, are they texas children first or vermont children first or are they american children first? it is a very complex topic.

the increasing transfer and public education campaign is critical in this area. i will close my remarks with that and my submitted detailed testimony as ". >> i thank you for the opportunity to testify on child deaths due to maltreatment. i am a professor of pediatrics at brown medical school as a director of the job protection program at hasbro children's hospital in rhode island. i have a unique perspective on this issue because i may be the only person in this room who often has stood at the bedside in the emergency department or in the intensive care unit and actually witnessed the deaths infants and children from maltreatment. when the death of a child is the result of abuse or neglect, a sad event becomes an immense tragedy. the 1700 yearly child maltreatment deaths officially

reported are just the tip of the iceberg. as the gao report points out, counting and tracking the number of deaths from maltreatment is challenging. sometimes, it is very difficult to distinguish between accidental and non-accidental deaths. for example, when a child is purposely suffocated with a pillow or a plastic bag, it can be impossible to distinguish this act from a death from natural causes. in addition, many deaths from neglect or not counted as such. in rhode island, a 3-year-old was told by his drunken father to go across a busy street to retrieve a discarded lamp from a neighbor's trash. he was hit by car and his death was ruled an accident. and what about a death caused by late affects of maltreatment? if a teenager who has suffered years of sexual abuse

commits suicide because of severe depression, is that an accident? these agencies cannot perform well with the cases they review have not been adequately investigated. the pediatric profession has recently made a giant leap in improving this process. the american board of pediatrics has established a board certified pediatrics of specialty of child abuse pediatrics. these pediatricians complete three additional years in treatment on child maltreatment, becoming experts in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of child maltreatment. when a child does die from abuse or neglect, these pediatricians can help police and social services agencies make the correct diagnosis by doing the appropriate medical workup in

the hospital. there is currently no federal support for training pediatric sub-specialists in child abuse pediatrics. we need to expand the availability of fellowships to make sure that these doctors are available to all hospitals around the country that care for children. the national association of children's hospitals and related institutions has published recommended guidelines for the establishment of job protection teams and -- but there are not enough trained expert pediatric specialists. another way to increase the accurate accounting of child neglect deaths is to support the performance of quality death investigations. multiple studies have shown that only about half of the child maltreatment debts are actually recognized and reported on death certificates and state of

statistics. in summary, in addition to improving our method of counting chung of trivant debts, we need to improve our ability to recognize and -- counting child maltreatment deaths, we need to improve our ability to recognize them. we can actually prevent the ultimate worst outcome, the death of a child. it is important to note that strengthening the quality of medical and death investigations in child abuse cases adds another protective factor. we would be better able to protect innocent parents from allegations of child abuse and neglect and to preserve and promote families. thank you. >> thank you, dr. jennings. with that, i would like to defer to the distinguished ranking member to introduce the next witness. >> we are pleased to have dr. jane burstain. she is responsible for child welfare and child protective service issues in austin.

it is located in the same neighborhood that is my home in east boston. it is -- in east austin. before she came to east boston, dr. burstain served as -- to east austin, under burstain served in the child welfare system. we have this coast-to-coast problem and inside offered by our panelists this morning. thank you, dr.. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important and tragic issue.

as representative doggett mentioned, i worked in the child welfare arena for more than a decade. i started out as an attorney in los angeles. representing thousands of abused and neglected children, i became interested in translating my experience into systemic improvement. i earned my phd. in 2008, i joined the center for public party resources in texas. i participate in state and national coalitions and educate policymakers on how to improve and create better outcomes for children and families. let me start by saying that i absolutely agree with representative doggett, that even one child deaths from maltreatment is too many. it is the ultimate tragedy for the family and the community and for the individuals who have to investigate it. but every single day in the united states, more than four children are reported to have died from abuse and neglect. that is one death every six hours.

and those are just the ones we know about. of all the witnesses who have testified here, the number of children who have died from maltreatment is probably even higher. as discussed in my written testimony and as adequately and as extensively documented by the witnesses here, we do need to do a better job with states getting more quality, comprehensive, and consistent data on child maltreatment deaths. but with children dying every day, we cannot wait for the data to be perfect before we act. i will focus on what we do know. we know that, even taking differences into account, some states have varying death rates than others. we know that poverty and having a teen parent are risk factors that are more prevalent in certain states. i look at states with high child poverty rates and high teen

birth rates. i looked to see if those states, on average, also had higher child maltreatment death rates .ee i found that states that had a high teen birthrate had a 61% higher death rate on average. as families struggling stress levels rise, children become more of a risk and the risk is growing. the great recession has pushed more families into poverty. compared to 2008, the number and percentage of children living in party has increased nationwide in virtually every state. there is a teen birth rate that has dropped nationwide, but some states still struggle with the shoe print in texas, there were 55,000 births to teenage girls. if we want to reduce child

treatment, now is not the time to cut support to struggling families. but as states struggle with huge deficits, that is exactly what is happening. in texas, with more than 1.6 million children living in poverty and at risk for maltreatment, there is only funding for about 6000 to receive direct child abuse and neglect prevention services. budgets are so tight that states are cutting services to children who have been subjected to abuse and neglect. two out of every three children who are child abuse and neglect victims stayed in their homes and did not receive any ongoing child welfare family support services. early education and child-care programs, which have been shown to reduce aggressive parenting behavior and maltreatment are

being cut as well. getting children out of the home and into day care reduces parental stress and makes the children more visible to reporters who can identify a problem before it escalates into something serious. but in the most recent budget in texas, the legislature cut grants by 100 percent and cut 20 cents out of every dollar that funds subsidize day care for at risk children. federal programs would help. expanded health insurance options for adults, patient protection and affordable health care act is important as well. with health insurance, poor parents are shriveling with mental abushealth and can get h.

i know that the budget issues extends to the federal government. but these cuts are difficult and, if we make that choice, our children will suffer. >> in today's testimony, we heard a variety of numbers. from my professional experience, it in the military, in business, and certainly in the morass of washington, d.c., you cannot fix it cannot measure. this will be one of the central questions, particularly of the number of children who die from maltreatment each year can states reported over 1700 deaths in 2009. hhs estimated 2400 from 2005 to

2006. this covington speaks board generally in which she sought in michigan and nevada. you report a number of reasons to believe that data -- in terms of skill, how many deaths do you believe we're missing year? what is a better number? >> the challenge is finding good research that measures these issues. we did a very careful literature review of all of the research that looked at the numbers of child fatalities from maltreatment. none of them are perfect. that is the problem. the one that has the relatively high percentage of undercounts is only three states. there is one that comes up with

2400. it reaches across a number different partners, but it is such a small population that it is hard to be confident in the data. we have seen differences in hundreds appeared we have seen as much as 1000. i would like to see a much better process for getting this information so we can actually no. >> what were the three states? >> california, michigan, and reuter island. >> what anybody else care to comment on this issue? -- and rhode island. >> would anybody else care to comment on this issue? >> journals speak to the

undercount being a least 15%. one is the journal of pediatrics and another is the draw a public health. each have extensive documentation they have put forward that say that the number appears to be at least a 50% undercount, but no one can confirm that to be precise. >> would anyone else like to share? >> i personally believe that it is probably 100% under count. i think we should double the number. i think that is probably true across the country. >> thank you. >> we had a case one time in

which it was an open child protective case. the lid on the third or fourth floor. a mother experienced an overdose. the child ran into the street and was hit by a car. it was considered a pedestrian accident, not a child abuse >> when we have done that with law-enforcement, medical community, and district attorneys is revealing to see what actually happened, here is 100 certified cases in which child sexual abuse occurred. we can identify 75 cases where there was a perpetrator the district attorney may choose to prosecute 10 cents the day the mayor may not be good enough.

i am not saying it is the answer to this whole problem, but not tracking those numbers, they are keeping the information separately. they can see where the structural problems are in the system. >> something i would throw to the members of our panel, if you have process improvement ideas, particularly as we can tie a cost or reduce the cost burden to get this linkage of data. removing unnecessary costs --

>> those figures that are widely and acknowledged are probably much greater than our understanding, right? i gather that everyone here, if we could do something to prevent just one of these horror stories that will take place in the next six hours or the next three hours or the next two hours, we would want to do that. looking more broadly across the country, what can we do? we want to have an accurate count, and the thing there are measures to get a better account. we are not counting beans, we're

counting children's lives. what are the things that the congress should be doing now to be sure that that rate doesn't go higher than every few hours? >> in addition to funding the programs, one of the things that could really be helpful is the title for waiver program. one of the problems with the child welfare system overall is that you have a block grant and that is the money that states have the flexibility to use for prevention programs. it basically covers foster care and adoption. that presents a much larger parts of the federal financing on child welfare. you have a waiver program are states would take the money they would have spent and spent it up

front to keep kids safe and prevent child abuse and neglect. i think it would go a long way to really helping these families keep their children safe. funding child care is a really important issue. it is something, just getting the child of the house relieves parental stress. parents know that someone is going to be looking at that child and there is a problem with the child coming with a bruised. there is someone who can see that child every day and have the protective services system intervene before the problem occurs. a lot of those deaths have been in the child welfare system doesn't even know about those kids. it is not as if they are investigating these difficult families and not doing a good job of intervening, they don't

have the opportunity to intervene. if he gets child care for these struggling families, you eliminate that problem. >> what would be the effect if the social services block grant is eliminated? if supplemental grants in states like texas are not continued and are set to expire within days, we don't have an unemployment benefits available for families? >> i can tell you that those are programs that i know in texas they used to support child welfare services. those are grants that are not only use to help families in poverty, the families that are at risk of abuse and neglect.

>> you are saying that in texas, the cuts have been so severe already that some families already identified as having had abuse and neglect no longer get the services? >> it is at about 45%. four out of every 10 children receive ongoing child welfare services. that rate is even lower and you have seven of every 10 children not getting services. >> you have an impressive coalition there. are there recommendation the you have had with regard to what steps we can take to prevent this death rate from accelerating? >> in agreement, to simplify

its, because i am not an expert on this issue, funding is critical, and services are critical. and the ability to collect the data accurately is critical. >> i like to share that mr. mcdermott and i introduced the child welfare reversal that passed out of the house in may. i encourage you to call your friends in the united states senate and ask them to move faster to address these things. the chair now recognizes mr. paulson from minnesota. >> the report explains the primary sources of data that we have on child fatalities.

what does hhs do with the data? >> because they oversee the state programs, it is used for things like checking to see if the states are abiding by expectations when they do these reviews. they have measures that they are expected to meet each year, for example, and no debt from maltreatment and foster care. as far as the more on the ground information, they have technical assistance centers. there is one that deals specifically with child protective services.

the center has done training and the kind of thing to push the information out. >> what to the states do with how the data? >> i am not sure i am the right person to enter that. >> 44 states require that the use of data and how to publish an annual report. most states are really getting smart. almost all of the states have a and advisory board and then make recommendations to the governor's and their state legislatures on policy and practice. some of them have been very successful. >> altogether, there are about $30 billion spent.

55% of that is state and local. there is a very weak federal oversight. they provide most of the money and the federal government provides the statutory framework through which most welfare systems operate. i would say virtually every single state is vulnerable to a class action litigation being brought against the them. there are very few sanctions even when states are out of compliance for many years in contradiction to what federal standards and oversight requirements exist. >> what does the national organization do with the information? >> our mission is to raise awareness of the issue. and to urge congress to take

action. >> thank you for helping raise awareness. this hearing is part of that effort, of what other recommendations do you have for us to help raise awareness as opposed to just going through numbers? >> it is important to put a face on in. the book where you really see the faces of these children and it becomes a personal as opposed to just a number or statistic, a thing that is a great way to raise awareness. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. >> i have watched these hearings since 1970. forwardoil is lurch after a horrible event. it is over and over and over again.

you just sort of said that there is a tremendous problem in most states will be vulnerable. let's go on the positive side. tommy the states where they have the best system for getting these cases and preventing them. it seems to me that the problem is we are always coming in on the back end looking at the problem and is already in the hands of the corner. what i am interested in, what states have had the best system in place to predict and deal with and prevent? >> that is a more complicated question that i am going to spend time answering. there are thousands of child protection offices across the country, many states rushed to the county system.

and we of luck that outcome measurements. the differences between any of the reports, fatalities, foster care, etc.. it may have multiples of five or tenfold. the states that do the best are the ones with smaller populations. it translates into less poverty and less complicated issues are round of domestic violence and substance abuse. all the state's experience it, but some are much more than others. they are concentrated in states with large minority populations. i'm saying that correlates with high rates of poverty in those communities. it has had a significant effect in dampening down the amount of child abuse.

there is home visiting virtually all children that as an extensive safety net had built around a welcoming a child and a family with people taking the responsibility overseeing what is happening. when you get to the big states, it is very challenging to manage the huge volume of cases brought to your attention in the first place. the national study says feature number is close to probably 9 million cases of childhood and neglect each year. >> you sit here and you looked out of the united states and figure out what should we do? it raises the question of more pediatricians trained in looking at the issue. where are the other gaps that we should put money or think about.

we try to figure out how to deal with it, but i would like to hear the other areas where there is any. >> our investigation system needs assistance. if you die in the first half of the year, you'll get a really good autopsy. in the second half, it will not be so good and that is because they run out of money. we're just now getting the answers we need. i think training and resources would be one area. >> of the medical profession does a very bad job of recognizing and views. i did a study were will cut 131 abusive head, which emissions. 1/3 of those kids had a previous head injury, with the doctor,

and the doctor missed the diagnosis. there is very little education about family violence and child abuse in medical school and residencies. i think that as a place where we can really ramped of the prevention by early recognition. >> is there a place for that kind of a thing? >> i did a study in colorado were elected to the amount of time in nursing school curriculums spent on family violence. it was less than two hours. i think this would be something that is relatively easy to do. >> i come at this issue, we did

a lot of work and represented many abused and neglected children. there is nothing more touching than the experience, frustrating and emotional and creates a lot of anger. that being said, i guess the argument and the testimony. you know the environment we live in in washington, d.c.. i just want to articulate that i get in and i understand that. what i am interested in talking about is a new way of looking at this issue. from all the testimony i have heard and read, each member of the panel agree that poverty is a high indication of child deaths.

and substance abuse. to all agree as the higher indication of the death of a child. does is not beg the question of targeting our resources by requiring parents who are on public assistance, parents in that program and require them to be drug and alcohol testing. i understand there will be many parents that will be alcohol free and substance abuse free. but if we're talking about saving the death of children, is that not the benefit that we can receive by identifying the high- risk children by testing their parents for substance and alcohol abuse? >> i completely agree with you

that we should be looking at ways that we can prevent child abuse and neglect deaths. if you are talking about not wanting the federal government or the states to have to spend more money -- >> you are asking for money elsewhere. >> i think the money would be better spent, all of the individuals receiving public assistance, it would be better spent getting treatment. >> not everyone, just parents. i am talking about a very narrow program. >> i believe the majority of people receiving public assistance have children. a majority of those people would be tested. what are you going to do if they turn out positive? >> horton made that information with law enforcement, target

those individuals, make sure those parents are getting substance abuse counseling, trying to leave them to a substance free-, and all of you agree it has created a higher risk for those children living in that environment. >> he would be right if there is money for treatment, but there is not. instead of spending money on testing people that you have no basis to believe they are, provide help the people you know who are. the need to get access to substance abuse. >> will have to wait until they abuse their children. then we can give them the abuse treatment. >> absolutely, you do not have to wait. under the health care reform act, one of the reasons people don't give treatment before they

become involved in the child welfare system is that for adults allowed of times don't have health insurance. the only way they can get treatment is services. >> i will just note that the congress and the senate has legislation introduced more than 10 years ago about making substance abuse treatment money available to state a child protective agencies whenever it was identified as being an issue. the senate finance committee never held a hearing on a bill. the little girl that was baked to death and of and, i remember the governors saying to me, take these children from these families and stop this issue. i said, this is the first death we have had in four years. there are 12,000 children at any

given moment. this problem you just described exist in 70% of the households. there is a way to target this much more specifically. this is a panel that has been involved for a long time. i can't emphasize the need for a national commission, nothing less than healthy human growth and development. the last that i knew of it was the rockefeller commission that was almost 20 years ago. we have had no national white house conferences since 1970. it receives very scant attention by the public and it needs to be opened up. >> i appreciate your passion, that is one of the reasons we're having this hearing today.

with that, we will recognize the gentleman from georgia. >> thank you for holding this hearing. i have been here for almost 25 years and attended the many hearings. this has been one of the most painful. what some of you have said it is almost unreal, unbelievable, but i know it is real. in my own state of georgia, just watching the news, reading the newspaper, it seems like something that would happen to some little child, somebody's baby every other day. i would really like to know, you mentioned race and poverty.

it is not something that we should sweep under the rug or some dark corner. we should face it head on. maybe some of you have data on the state of georgia. can you speak to the whole issue, young families where there is a father, a mother, the boyfriend, girlfriend with a child? the child was beaten. are left alone and died. what is happening there? a lovely set about putting a face on end. how do you dramatize it can't

make it real? that this is a major problem. >> man has a very directly, the legacy of slavery endorsed the behavior that we're talking about. it is manufactured. and in the black community, you have a very high out of wedlock birth rate. you have a very high poverty rate and in prison and three of young males. family formation has been extremely challenged in the last few decades. the research shows that children with an unrelated to mail are almost 100 times more risk of dying than when there is a biological related father.

i've made some sweeping statements on this that requires a much closer look, but there are realities that show that this is a three times higher fatality rate. >> speak about poverty. >> i was going to add, would a different color? the white middle-income kids get a lot of attention, but african- american kids are over represented in the numbers, and poverty was a huge correlation. part of the reasons we don't get counted, they're living in poor

families. that is one of the reasons they don't get counted as well. it leaves us with numbers that don't make a lot of sense. >> another member of the panel? >> in 1960, -- the federal government is spending seven times more per senior. is the same from one end of the country to the next. that is true with medicare and social security. if you look at the health care programs of children, it is largely up to the states to

shake, which is attributable to some of the poverty that we are talking about. >> i would like all the members to know that the back of your packets and binders are state specific information from the congressional research service. >> this has to be one of the worst crimes that can be committed. crime against the child. he talked about putting a face on it. it is terrific. one of her most difficult days is when she recognizes abuse in a child. in north dakota, support for her has been outstanding to get that child in a good environment, a safe as possible environment.

the discussion really relates to around the coordination. almost half of the states that are reporting this data are kind of regurgitating did you already have. it seems to me that states should be regurgitating date of whether it is a medical examination after death for the routine structure which seems like an outstanding or somewhat volunteer. you can bring experts into that. how do we get more accurate information? how do we get more of a response? >> it seems to me that we have to places that count and the response breaks down. the first one is related to identifying whether a death is caused by mao treatment.

we of learned about how challenging that can be. as you referred to, collecting data in a way that can be a more complete picture. i agree that the review team on the local level can be very useful because it is a vehicle for bringing different organizations together. part of the issue is trust and personal relationships. it could make a difference. >> the overall objective is to prevent this from happening. as i look at this data, it is as accurate and current as you can get eighth. we are years behind, so talking

on the local area, you have a large stake populace or a small state. they're also thinking, what steps can be done on all low level or state level to help

these children. i am always frustrated by the lack of communications between different agencies. if you took this further, you have the child death review committee. let's take drugs for example. it is in almost every one of these cases. how can access the agencies that could identify and share that information? encouraging these people to get treatment for having a high level of watchfulness. >> that is the place where teams meet weekly and go over every case. it is a proactive process. having more support for child protection teams is going to make a big difference. we do a lot of preventive work to avoid those at the back end. >> there is a trend for more improved coordination. some states actually require it even though they don't actually follow through. places where they are done in a

coordinated way, i think there is profound improvement. you have law enforcement, prosecutor, mental-health, education, there are zero at the table. >> it seems there were best practices we could share with other states. >> a lot of this is going right now with the department of justice. there are 800 local jurisdictions that district attorneys, child protection law enforcement that comes together, and may i just say, where i had the privilege of spending the better part of the year, that year ranked first for second. but if you had taken the children who are native american and put them in any state, they would have ranked fifty first. the data misrepresented the overall well-being.

it took us that far -- that much to get to the native community. i would be curious to see what impact putting that data on the table has done. did not want to start spending money without the numbers. >> let me sincerely thank you for holding this hearing today. and for bringing this issue, and light of the -- in light of the kaylee anthony case, what we're doing as a nation to combat abuse of children is certainly needed. i wonder if our attention with

vietnam if it were not for this particular case. i appreciate you letting your voice and your face to this issue. it is necessary subject matter that has to be addressed. i wonder if we would have the same attention. i am not so sure the media would be as strong as it is today. whether or not the death was caused by accidental neglect or first degree murder, at the end of the day, that young child was killed. it may have been preventable if the science and the steps were taken if signs were seen and proper steps were taken.

i think the death of any young child, we should be doing anything we can to prevent that. going back to my days in the state legislature, there was concern by not even accidental neglect. the aspiration of small parts and delays, children dying from what appeared to be an ammonia when in fact there was a small plastic piece in their lungs and only the autopsy found that later to be more high profile for baby cribs. i would like to ask the witnesses, because i know the report has been focusing on the proper gathering of statistics and questioning whether a not we

are getting all of the reportable statistics and compiling them correctly. the breadth and extent of neglect that is taking place, with an address the issues once we have the information. what else can we be doing to raise awareness? we have seen success in public awareness campaigns as well as sleeping. what can we be doing to help parents that may not be mine fully neglectful? the economy being where it is and the stress they bear on people's lives.

what can we be doing to help those folks as well? and other care givers may be unaware of the dangers of different situations. what can we be doing to help those folks? >> one thing you have done is visitation. they have done a randomized controlled trial where they found that over the years, it increases the educational level of the child. and it decreases the abuse rate and the illness rate. it would be an excellent model for prevention. >> it was founded in the health care reform act. i think is really important that

that stay there and be a large part for every state for the family owned businesses. one of the evidence based practices we know can reduce treatment. we need the funds to figure out what works for families. when we find something that works, make sure and get out to the general public so we can start implementing these practices. >> i would like to thank all of our witnesses for your time and preparation. research and also helping us understand this very critical option. we will submit than directly to you in writing.

and submit a copy of your response back to us so we can insert into the records as well. thank you for letting this very critical subject and the committee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up this evening, we will bring you a debate from ralph nader and the senate floor -- a center for study of responsive law. such a tax will be on trade for stocks, derivatives,

currencies, and other financial instruments. former white house officials and senior retired military officers participating in the simulated destruction of the supply of global oil, the former director of national intelligence is part of the national summit on energy security. and with the senate adjourned for the august recess, watch court tv in prime time on c-span to. tonight, family stories meet national history. two soldiers, two pacifists, one family. also at 8:45, a family history of african-americans in nineteenth century new york. ronald reagan talked about my father at 100.

tonight at 8:00 on c-span 2. >> seen as a testing ground for presidential hopefuls, republican candidates are gathering in iowa for grass- roots politics and festivities. live from des moines, we will take your questions about politics and we will go to the iowa straw poll. road to the white house in iowa, this week on cspan. >> every weekend, it is american history to leave the starting saturday morning. telling the american story. watch personal interviews on historic events. our bookshelf features some of the best known history writers. he figures, battles, and events.

during lectures and history, go behind the scenes at museums and historic sites on american artifacts. -- a lookesident's at the past american presidents. half its e-mail to you by pressing the c-span alert button. >> cnn legal analyst on the supreme court and its politics. inside the secret world of the supreme court, he is introduced by the public information officer. this is just over 45 minutes. >> jeff is a staff writer for

cnn and one of the most recognized journalists and the country. inside the secret world of the supreme court, it spent more than four months on the best- seller list and under the 2000 eighth j. anthony lukas prize for nonfiction. the secret struggle for the supreme court will be published next year. jeff served as u.s. attorney in brooklyn and as an associate counsel in the office of independent counsel. he earned his bachelor's degree from harvard college and graduated from harvard law school where he was an editor of the harvard law review. please join me in welcoming jeff toobin. [applause] >> thank you, cathy, and hello, everyone.

it is nice to be here. i have a lot of affection and some sympathy for what you do. journalists are always trying to get stuff in the paper, in the magazine, on cnn. your job is sometimes exactly the opposite. don't try to that, don't say that, that is not true. sometimes you are right to try to keep it out because it is wrong or offensive. but sometimes it is just your job and it is our job to try to do something else. i've always appreciated the good faith and the intelligence and honesty and candor of human knowledge that i have encountered which you and your colleagues.

nowhere is that true of the than the united states supreme court. and all of their colleagues. not intentionally, but i have occasionally made their lives miserable. i want to express my appreciation for the work you do end of a great web sites. we have a piece of advice that i am sure many of you are familiar with. show, don't tell. i would like to show the one time i believe i have ever written about the public affairs office at the united states supreme court, which is a short talk of the town story which was published 10.5 years ago. i think he will recognize the circumstances.

in ordinary circumstances, the press room of the united states supreme court has the feel of a law library. is reserved for a handful of regulars. at the press room is a place of steady habits. the year begins on the first monday in october. this is what may be events of last week so extraordinary. after the arguments in the case of bush v. gore on monday, it grew to more than 50. at 10:00 on tuesday morning, the opinions are handed out that there is a sprint to camera locations. the vigil began in earnest. the supreme court is one of the relatively weak proved institutions in washington, so

the search for clues about when the ruling might come became desperate. reporters monitor the movements of the public information officer as if she were some kind of lab rat. [laughter] was she walking faster? closing her door? going to lunch? no clue was too small to dissect. the activities of the supreme court police famous for their stonefaced police of protesters game to scrutiny. -- gained scrutiny. the staff had placed a lot of the poinsettia -- potted poinsettia. the supreme court moved it from one end of the table to the other. [laughter] was the staff making room to distribute the justices' decision?

it turned out that a staff member had noted that reporters were perching on the table. the poinsettia had been relocated to keep it from being knocked over. when it came clear that she was ordering dinner for herself, the reporters followed suit. they had a rare privilege of acting out a real-life version of an old washington joe. to theu send 4 pizzas supreme court, 4 with mushroom, 1 plain? it's not very funny. the and became an orderly fashion. at about 9:40, ed turner entered the room and announced that we are going to make a line.

he read out the names of the permanent members of the news and stack up behind them. the large cardboard boxes appeared in the line moved at the nervous half running pace of paratroopers and jumping out of a plane. they are arranged -- they arranged for the gift shop. the sooner everyone was gone, the better. the person in my position, such as it is, is often asked a question. who is your favorite justice? this is one of many areas in my remarks, and i want to say this

at the outset. kathy encourage russia could not answer these questions appropriately. certainly, they do not associate themselves with my remarks in any way. the answer to my question is that i need a new answer. my answer for a long time was david souter. he was such a wonderful, unique american character on the supreme court. this is a guy with no cellphone and no answering machine that did not use a computer and who does not like electric light. he used to move his chair around his chambers during the course of the day to catch the sunlight going through the window. justice souter could be somewhat eccentric and he also knew that

there was a fact about the united states supreme court. they are simultaneously very public figures, important people. and largely unknown to the public. people don't recognize them very often. they are really not very widely recognized figures. the justices sometimes have of little fun with it. there is a peculiar fact in this regard, and this has been true for a very long time. bryer and souter are frequently mistaken for each other. one time not too long ago, justice souter was driving from washington and the stock at a little restaurant to get something to eat.

a couple came up to him and the guy said, i know you. you are on the supreme court. you are stephen bryer. he said, yes, i'm stephen bryer. the guy asked a question souter wasn't ready for. what is the best thing about being on the supreme court? >> it is the privilege of serving with david souter. [laughter] how could you not love a guy like that? gone, just back in new hampshire. the court is a different place than it was. people often talk about facts about the supreme court and there are certain indisputable facts. there are six men and 311.

six products of harvard law school and three products of the hill. there are six catholics and three jews. those are interesting facts. the only important fact about the supreme court is that there are five republicans and four democrats. that is almost all you need to know. as much as we might think and hope, it is a departure of something different from the partisanship that we see at the capitol for the struggle for the white house. the court is a very political institution. that is often the case in american history. it is not something novel, but

the politics of the current supreme court are quite vivid and quite important. and to sort of explain why i think this moment is important, i would like to back up a little. the court is really a unified ideological force. in the late 1960's, the court was a very liberal institution. there were seven liberals on the supreme court. there was really a liberal agenda. justice brennan and chief justice warren would talk about what are the cases we want to take? they really worked their way through american law. every year, the huge cases.

giving the press important new protections. 1965, justice douglas's opinion. i griswold vs. conn, establishing the right to privacy. another case that revolutionize criminal procedure and, perhaps more importantly, changed television dramas forever. 1967, perhaps the best name case in the history of the supreme court. loving vs. virginia. the case that said states could no longer ban racial intermarriage. there are people in this room that were alive in 1967, and it

was only then that the supreme court got around to banning racial intermarriage. to put it another way, in 1960, when barack obama's parents got married in kenya. i mean, hawaii. don't we miss donald trump running for president? so good for awhile. their marriage was a crime in 25 states, and there were people in prison for it. it is recognition that this country has changed and for the better in many ways. in a curious way of supreme court vacancies, four justices left. jimmy carter is the only

president in american history to serve a single full term and not have any appointments. richard nixon was only president for 5.5 years. you may recall he had to leave early, but he got 4 appointmens. justice harlan and black left in quick succession. nixon replaced them. warren burger, william rehnquist, and harry blackmun. it illustrates something about the supreme court and something much broader than that. which is, to me, the biggest political development of my lifetime. the evolution of the republican party. it is almost unrecognizable from the republican party of today.

that is because -- you can see that transformation in the appointments to the supreme court. many people thought that when nixon got those appointments, the court was going to change dramatically. it did not. the accord was almost as liberal as it was in the 1970's as the 1960's. the nixon tapes case, they forced him out of office. they ended the death penalty in the united states in 1972. the declared every statute unconstitutional. they allowed it back in 1976, but still. and still, the most controversial decision. roe vs. wade, a 7-2