hard, if you are willing to take responsibility, you canthat you can find a job t supports a family. and find a home you can make your own. they will not go bankrupt when you get sick. but maybe you can take a little vacation with your family once in awhile. nothing fancy but just time to spend with those you love. maybe see the country a little bit. maybe come down to roanoke. [applause] that your kids can get a great education and if they are willing to work hard, they can achieve things he would not have even imagines achieving. then you can maybe retire with some dignity and some respect and be part of a community and give something back. that is the idea of america.

it does not matter what you look like. it does not matter where you come from. it does not matter what your last name is. you can raise -- live out the american dream. that is what binds us all together. [applause] the reason that i think so many of us came together in 2008 was because we saw the for a decade, that dream was slipping away. there were too many people who were working hard but not seen their incomes or wages go up. we had taken a surplus and turned it into a deficit. we were running to wars on a credit card. job growth was the most sluggish it has been in 50 years. there was a sense that those who

were in charge did not feel responsible and so we came together to say we are going to get about the kinds of changes that allow us to get back to those basics. allow us to restore and live out those values. but we did not realize that some of the recklessness, some of that irresponsibility would lead to the worst financial crisis we have seen since the great depression. i do not need to tell you what we have been through over the last three and a half years because you have lived it. job, toofolks lost many people saw their savings take a hit. but you know what is giving me confidence and faith is the fact that as i have travelled around the country just like i used to travel around illinois, that

same decency, those same values are still alive. at least outside washington. [applause] times have been tough but america's character has not changed. the court decency of the american people is undiminished. our willingness to fight through and work through the tough times and come together, that's still there. just as we came together in the last campaign, not just democrats but republicans and independents, because we are not democrats or republicans first. we are americans first. [applause] just like we came together in 2008, we know that we have to keep working, keep moving toward in 2012. we knew back then that it was

not going to be easy. these problems we are facing, they did not happen overnight. they will not be solved overnight. we understood it might take more than one year or one term or even one president. but what we also understood was that we were not going to stop until we have restored that basic american promise that makes us the greatest country on earth. [applause] our goal isn't just to put people back to work although that is priority number one. it is to build an economy where the work pays off. an economy where everyone, whether you are starting a business or punching a clock, can see your hard work and responsibility rewarded. that is what this campaign is about, roanoke, and that is why i am running for a second term

as president of the united states. [applause] crowd: four more years! >> let me say this -- it is fashionable among some pundits, this happens every time american hits a rough patch. it is fashionable to say this time is different, this time we really are in the soup. it will be hard to stark -- to solve our problems. what is missing is not big ideas. what is missing is not that we have got an absence of technical solutions to deal with issues like education or energy or our deficit. the problem we have right now is

we have a stalemate in washington. and the outcome of this debate we are having is going to set the stage, not for just the next year or five years but the next 20. on the one side, you have my opponent in this presidential race and his republican allies. no, no, look -- we are having a good, healthy, democratic debate. that is how this work. on their side, they have a basic theory about how you grow the economy. the theory is very simple -- they think that the economy grows from the top down. so their basic theory is if wealthy investors are doing well, everybody is doing well. if he spent trillions of dollars on more tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, that is somehow going to create jobs.

even if we have to pay for it by cutting education, transportation projects and abc middle-class folks have a higher tax burden. -- and maybe see middle-class folks have a higher tax burden. they believe if you tear down all the regulations be put in place, for example on wall street banks or on insurance companies or on credit card companies or on polluters, that somehow the economy is going to do much better. those are there to theories. the tax cuts for the high end and roll back to regulate -- rollback regulations. here is the problem. you may have guessed -- we tried this. we tried this in the last decade and it did not work. now, before i finish, can i say

by the way that some of you have been standing for a while and i see a couple of folks slumping down a little bit. make sure your drinking water. bend your knees, cannot stand up to date. -- do not stand up too straight. \ the paralegals well -- the paralegals. the paramedics will come by to give folks a little help. this happens every day event. i love you back. [applause] but i just want to point out that we tried their theory for almost ten years. and here is what it got us -- we got the slowest job growth in decades. we got deficits as far as the

eye can see. your incomes and your wages did not go up. and it culminated in a crisis because there were not enough regulations on wall street and they could make reckless bets with other people's money that resulted in this financial crisis and you had to foot the bill. o that's where their theory turned out. now, we do not need more top- down economics. i have a different view. i believe that the way you grow the economy is on the middle out. i believe that you grow the economy from the bottom up. i believe that when work and -- working people are doing well, the country does well. [applause] i believe in fighting for the middle class because it they are prospering, all of us will prosper. that is what i am fighting for and that is why i am running for

a second term as president of the united states. [applause] this is what i have been focused on since i have been in office. in 2008, i promised to make sure the middle class taxes did not go up. because the recession, you needed help so we cut the income taxes by $3,600. [applause] if you hear somebody say i am a big tax guide, you just remember $3,600 for the typical family. that is the tax break you have gotten since i have been in office. [applause] four years later, i am running to keep middle-class tax is lower. this week, i called on congress to immediately extend income tax cuts on the first $250,000 of

income. what that means is 98% of americans make less than to lend it $50,000 -- less than $250,000 -- said he would have the security that your income taxes would not go up a dime. -- so that you would have the security that your income taxes would not go up a dime. this was not some campaign, as -- promise. if congress does not do anything now, on january 1, almost everybody here, your taxes will go up. on average of 1600 -- $1,600. you would think this makes sense. republicans say they are the party with no new taxes. that is what they always say. excepts so far, they have

refused to act. this might confuse you. if you might say why would they not want to give 90% of americans and the certainty of this income tax cut? it turns out, they do not want you to get your tax rate unless the other 2%, the top 2%, they get their tax break as well. now, understand, the top 2%, all we are the ones most benefited from the last decade and not only tax breaks but also a lot of the money from increased profits and productivity went up to that top to%. the bottom line is, the top to% does not need help. -- the top 2% does not need help. i understand why they would not want to pay more taxes. nobody wants to.

but if you continue their tax breaks, that costs $1 trillion. since we are trying to bring down our deficit and debt, if we spend $1 trillion on tax cuts for them, we will have to find that $1 trillion summerhouse -- somewhere else. that means we might have to make it look more expensive for students or we might have to cut back on the services we are providing our great veterans when they come home. or we might have to stop investing in basic science and research that keeps us as a leading edge economy. or, as they have suggested, maybe we would have to turn medicare into a voucher program. i do not think those are good ideas. what i have said to the republicans is let's have this debate about the tax cuts for the wealthiest folks but in the meantime, let's do what we agree on which is give 98% of

americans some certainty and security. [applause] so far, they have not taken me up on my offer. this gives you a sense of how congress works these days. you have the possibility of your taxes going up a dental four, five months and instead of working on that, guess what they worked on this week? they voted for the 33rd time to try to repeal a health-care bill we passed two years ago, after the supreme court said it is constitutional and we are going to go ahead and implement that wall. -- tjhahat law. [applause] i do not know about you, virginia, but i think they have a better way to use their time.

i think helping you make sure your taxes did not go up, that would be a good use of congressional time. this is just a small example of the difference between myself and mr. romney, between myself and the republicans running congress. look, virginia, i want to repeat -- this is a choice. if you think their way of doing things is a recipe for economic growth and helping the middle class, you should vote for them. you can send those folks to washington. i promise you they will carry out what they promised to do. but that is not what i went to washington. i went to washington to fight for the middle-class. i went to washington to fight for working people who are trying to get into the middle class and have some sense of security in their lives. people like me and mr. romney do not need another tax cut.

you need some help right now to make sure your kids are living the kind of life you want for them. and that is why i am running for a second term as president of the united states. [applause] on almost every issue, you have the same kind of choice. when the auto industry was about to go under, when million jobs lost, my opponent said let's let detroit go bankrupt. what did i say? i am betting on america's workers. i am betting on american industry. guess what? three years later, gm is number one again and the american auto industry is rolling back. so i believe in american manufacturing. i believe in making stuff here in america.

my opponent, he invested in companies who are called pioneers of outsourcing. i believe in in sourcing. i want to stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. let's give tax breaks to companies investing right here in the united states. let's invest in american products -- american workers to the commit product and ship them around the world with those words made in america. [applause] i am running because our men and women in uniform have sacrificed so much. we could not be prouder of them and we cannot be prouder of our veterans. because of their efforts, i was able to keep my promise and end the war in iraq.

[applause] i now intend to transition outside -- out of afghanistan and bring our troops home. [applause] what i said is, because of their outstanding work, we have been able to decimate al qaeda and take out bin laden. [applause] so now it is time for us to take half of the money we are saving on war, pay down our deficit and use the other half to do some nation-building here at home. roanoke knows something about transportation. this is a railroad hub for a long time. so you know how important that is to growing an economy. let's take some of that money and rebuild our roads and

bridges and rail systems. let's build wireless networks in rural communities so everybody can tap into world markets. let's put construction back -- construction workers back to work. in doing what they do best -- rebuilding america. that is why i am running for a second term as president of the united states. that is the choice to face. i am running to make sure that our kids are getting the best education in the world. [applause] when i came in office, we passed the tuition tax credit that has saved millions of families out of dollars. now i want to extend it but i do not want to stop there. we want to fight thanks to some of the folks here, including students from vt, we want to fight to make sure that the loan interest rates would not double.

but that is not enough. i want to lower tuition to make it more affordable for all young people. [applause] i want to help our elementary schools and middle schools, our high schools. hire more teachers. especially in math and science. i want to million more people to be able to go to community colleges to get trained in the jobs that businesses are hiring for right now. [applause] because of higher education, a good education is not a luxury. it is an economic necessity. that is how we are going to win the race for the future and that is what i am running for a second term as president, to finish the job we started in 2008. now, we got another person down there.

ok. we see him. got a deal with home ownership. and the fact of the matter is that my opponents the loss of it when it comes to dealing with homeowners -- philosophy when it comes to dealing with homeowners is let the bottom falls out. i do not think that is part of the solution, that is part of the problem. what i want to do is i want to let every single person refinance their homes and save about $3,000 a year because he will spend that $3,000 on some of the stores right here in downtown. you will help small businesses and large businesses grow because they will have more customers. it will be good for you and it will be good for the economy. that is why i am running for a second term as president because

i want to help american homeowners. [applause] i am running because i still believe that he should not go bankrupt when you get sick. [applause] we passed that health care law because it was the right thing to do. and because we did, 30 million people who do not have health insurance will get help getting health insurance. 6 million young people who did not have health insurance can now stay on their parents' plan and get health insurance. seniors are seeing their prescription drug costs go down and by the way, if you have health insurance, you are not getting hit by a tax. the only thing that is happening to you is that you now have more security because insurance companies cannot drop you when you get sick. and they cannot mess around with you because of some fine print

in your policy. if you're paying your policy, you will get the deal if you paid for. that is why we passed health care reform. [applause] one last thing -- one of the biggest differences is how we pay down our debt and deficits. my opponent, mr. romney's plan is, he wants to cut taxes and other $5 trillion on top of the bush tax cuts. the only way you can pay for that if you're actually saying you're bringing down the deficit, is to cut transportation, cut education, cut the basic research, about arise medicare and he would still end up having to raise taxes on middle-class families to pay for this $5 trillion tax cut. that is not a deficit reduction plan. that is a deficit expansion plan.

i have got a different idea. i do believe we can cut. we have already made $1 trillion worth of cuts. we can make more cuts in programs that did -- that did not work and make government work more efficiently. not every government program works the way it is supposed to. frankly, government cannot solve every problem. if somebody does not want to be helped, government cannot always tell them. paris, we can put more money into schools but -- parents, we can put more money into schools but if your kids to not want to learn, it is hard to teach them. but you know what, i am not going to see us got-- gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax cuts to those who do not need them. so i will reduce the deficit in a balanced way. we can make another dollar trillion -- another $1 trillion

cut and ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. by the way, a guy named bill clinton did it. we created 23 million new jobs. turning a deficit into a surplus in which people did just fine. we created a lot of millionaires. there are a lot of wealthy, successful americans who agree with me because they want to give something back. they know that if you have been successful, you did i get there on your own. -- you did not get there on your own. i am always struck by people who think it must be because i was just so smart. there are a lot of smart people out there. it must be because i worked harder. let me tell you something, there are a whole bunch of hard- working people out there. [applause] if you are successful, somebody

along the lines davy some help. there was a great teacher somewhere in your life. somebody helped to create this unbelievable american system that we have that allows you to thrive. somebody invested in roads and bridges. if you have a business, you did not build that. somebody else made that happen. the internet did not get invented on its own. government research created the internet so that all the companies could make money off of the internet. the point is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative but also because we do things together. there are some things just like fighting fires that we do not do on our own. and imagine if everybody had their own fire service. that would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. so we say to ourselves ever

since the founding of this country, there are some things we do better together. that is how we thought it the gi bill and created the middle- class. that is how we build the golden gate bridge or the hoover dam. that is how we invented the internet are sent a man to the moon. we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people and that is the reason i am running for president because i still believe in that idea. you are not on your own. we are in this together. [applause] all of these issues, all of these issues go back to the first campaign that i talked about. everything has to do with how do we help middle-class families, working people, stivers, dewars, how the we help them succeed -- how do we help, doers,

them succeed? that is what i had been thinking about the entire time i have been president. the other side will spend more money than we have ever seen in history and they do not really have a good argument for how they do better but they are thinking they can win the election if they just remind people that a lot of people are still out of work in the economy is not growing as fast as it needs to and it is all obama's fault. that is basically there is. and they will run more of these ads. there will be more variations on the same theme but it will be the same basic message over and over and over again. now, their ads may be a plan to win an election but it is not a plan to put people back to work. it is not a plan to strengthen the middle-class. the reason it does not worry me is because we have been outspent before.

we have been counted out before. the contents, they did not think i could win virginia the last time. -- the pundits, they did not think i could when virginia the last time. the last time i came to this part of virginia, all of the polical writers said he is not serious. he is just making a tactical move. no, i am serious. i am going to get some votes out here. [applause] and so the reason that i continue to have confidence is because when i look at you, i see my grandparents. when i see your kids, i see my kids. and i think about all of those previous generations, our parents and grandparents and great grandparents, some of them came here as immigrants. some were brought here against their will.

some of them worked on farms and on theork on mills and real world but no matter where they worked, they always had faith there was something different about this country. that in this country, you have some god-given rights of life and liberty car and the pursuit of happiness. -- and the pursuit of happiness. and a belief that all of us are equal. and we are not guaranteed success but we are guaranteed the right to work hard for success. [applause] they understood that and they understood that succeeding in america was not about how much money was in your bank account

but it was about whether you were doing right by your people. doing right by your family. doing right by your neighborhood. doing right by your community. doing right by your country. living out our values, living out our dreams, living out our hopes. that is what america was about. [applause] and so when i look out at this crowd, you inspire me. [applause] and i have to tell you that the privilege of being your president is something that i thank god for every single day. i said to you in 2008 when i was running, i am not a perfect man. you can ask michelle about that.

and i told you i would not be perfect president will what i did say to you was that i would always tell you what i thought in where i stood and that i would wake up every single morning thinking about you and fighting as hard as i knew how to make your life in a little bit better. [applause] and over these last three and a half years, i know times have been tough and i no change has not always come as fast as you would like but you know what? i kept that promise. i have thought about you. i have thought for you. i believe in you. and if he still believe it in me, if you are willing to stand up with me and campaign with me and make phone calls for me and knocked on doors with me, i

promise you we will finish what we started and we will restore the basic element that built this country and we will remind the world why is that america is the greatest nation on earth. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪ ♪

♪

♪

[applause] [cheers] ♪ ♪

[cheers] >> president obama on the campaign trail in roanoke, virginia. he was joined by former governor tim kane and senator mark

warner. in the news, the president's republican rival, mitt romney, as asking for an apology from the president as the hill reports this is all about allegations by the obama campaign that mitt romney misled the public about his time at bain capital. he says he did not have a role in managing the company after 1999 when the company oversaw a number of layoffs and said jobs overseas. the washington post reports that between 1999 and 2001, mitt romney signed as many as six bain documents with the sec. coming up tonight on c-span, the national governors' association annual meeting in williamsburg, virginia. we will follow that with a look at syria and the assad regime from on the ground. later, another look president obama's campaign stop in in roanoke. >> hitler had then had virtually

no plans. he realized the armies were not coming to his aid. that is when he collapsed when he fell it would come to an end. it was then a question of sears said -- question of suicide. >> another look at the world war ii. >> his main objective was not to be captured alive by the russians. he was afraid of being paraded through moscow in a case. he was determined to die. >> more with antony beevor sunday at 8 on "q &a." >> governors from across the nation are gathered for the 104th national governors' association meeting. they opened the meeting and

highlighted the challenges facing state government and governor dave heineman urged president obama to make tough policy decisions. virginia governor bob mcdonnell hosted the event. this is from the old capitol building in williamsburg. >> welcome to williamsburg. i hope everybody will get a chance to see why that rich history of the virginia, 405 years old now, is still alive and well. i am delighted to be the host governor for this national governors' association conference and i am delighted to be joined by the chairman of the national governors association , dave heineman of nebraska and vice-chairman, jack markell of delaware. you will hear from him shortly. this place is the old house of virginia. has beenerally history

made. since 1607 when 144 brave men and boys landed at jamestown, virginia, they began the greatest experiment in human freedom and free enterprise and democracy i think the world has ever known. we are excited about the rich history still being alive in virginia. in 1619, the settlers first started what would become the oldest continuing legislative body in the entire free world and that is the general assembly of virginia where they convened in a small church at jamestown which people be able to see tonight. we are excited about the governor's being able to see that. the old fort of jamestown was just discovered in 1996 with a sophisticated technology. they found the old footings of the fort.

- theymoved artifacts -0 are removing artifacts as we speak today. this place for you are today is a place built back in 17 05 -- 1705 after the old capital in jamestown was burned several times. they felt there was a need to move inland of freight from -- away from the river. so the capitol building was built. the edifice you are in was rebuilt in 1747 after several fires. this would have been the place where the house of burgess and some of the great names of american history would have sat in this room and participated in a democracy. george washington, thomas jefferson, george mason and

others would have been in this building, in this room. the first two governors of virginia during the time that this was the capital of a virginia up until 7099, where patrick henry, and thomas jefferson, the second. they would have been in this place with the speaker sitting right behind us addressing those assembled burgesses . it is a place where patrick henry railed against the stamp act in his famous speech. this place and this entire premise is rich in history from williamsburg to jamestown. this also happens to be the place where i was inaugurated in 2005 as attorney general of a virginia. the first inauguration since 1799. it was a real treat to honor the

400th anniversary of this country to be honored in a place like this. i cannot think of a better place for governors to love the country, who love the rich history of america. whatever stake are from, i know they join me in believing this is the greatest and most prosperous country on earth and we want to do everything we can as governors to do things that are positive and effective in our respective states to keep this live plant owned well. -- alive and well. this is something that i hoped will be a great source of inspiration not only to you but all of the governors. we have a lot of important business to talk about. i will let the leaders discussed everything from health care to energy to sequestration and

other issues. every meeting, we have inspiring speakers that come in to get us to think outside the box. now we will start with mr. collins who can inspire us about how we can manage our states. we have major activities that will take place in jamestown tonight analyst bert tomorrow that i think will be very great for our governors. i let joining -- i look forward to joining my fellow governors. the states being the laboratories of innovation and democracies, we will continue to talk about the ways we can work together to work with our stand up to the federal government if they overreach or deny give us the flexibility to govern well

and hopefully have some republican -- positive things that both republicans and democrats can join in. regardless of what party we are in, we have this belief that this story history of our country and our long history of the experiment in freedom in the american republic now is one that we all share a great love for and want to do our small parts as governors to keep that torch of freedom burning brightly. i want to turn it over to the chairman of the national governors' association to make remarks, dave heineman. >> thank you very much. as he were giving those remarks about american history and virginia, if you could have given that when i was in high school, i might have gotten a better grade in classic. i want to thank you for the update. good morning -- welcome to the

2012 national governors association meeting. i do want to thank bob mcdonnell and his wife for such a warm welcome. we are looking forward to all the events that will be occurring this week. we are very appreciative of all that you have done. i know your wife and my wife have done more work than you when i combine and we appreciate what they have done. i am delighted to be here with a good friend, the delaware governor jack markell. jack and i have known each other for more than a decade and research together as state treasurers. -- we served together as state treasurers; . i want to thank him for the support he is giving me this year as the vice chair. we have worked together on a variety of issues in different capacities. i have great respect for jack and the work he does as the governor of delaware. working with jack and all the governors is one of the things that makes the nga unique organization.

nga provides governors a platform to have a bipartisan candid conversation about developing innovative and a group approach to governing. -- and improved approaches to governing. it has been a privilege to serve as the chair of the mta and i'm proud of our successes and out like to share a couple of those with you. during the last year, we were able to streamline the nga policy process and change the way we do business of the governor's priorities are at the forefront of everything we do including our lobbying efforts on capitol hill. for example, governors worked together on the issue of d-block and urged congress to establish a nationwide conditions effort for our first response is providing them with a reliable access to the most modern communications technology was and remains a good approach for all governors for the next as implementation. nga recently held meetings with teams from 50 states and territories to help keep policy- makers examine and understand

the challenges and opportunities related to implementing the public safety broadband. nga continue to support additional opportunities to force state leadership on broadband build out and governments. following our winter meeting in february, the governor's continued to work together to preserve our air national guard and protected from disproportionate and damaging reductions. we fought hard to be part of the process and to provide a path to meet fiscal responsibilities while protecting the aircraft and personnel list -- necessary to fill the guard bus critical mission at home and abroad. we're also bringing together a group of states in a prescription drug abuse policy academy. the abuse of prescription drugs is the fastest growing drug problem in the united states.

alabama governor robert bentley and the color of governor -- and the color of a governor are leading this exercise in strategic planning aimed at reducing the abuse. the recent supreme court ruling regarding the new federal health care law remains at the top of governor's mind. even though governors have different opinions on this issue, we will be having many conversations about this issue to throughout the conference. finally, states continue to face fiscal challenges which is why i chose a growing state economies as my chair policy initiative. economic growth and job creation is fundamental to our success and our future and it is the most important issue facing governors. we want to help the private sector grow and create new job opportunities for our citizens. this past year, we held four

regional summit attended by 10 governors and staff for more than 35 states and territories. we heard from the business community and education leaders at each summit. the goal of growing state economies is to provide governors of the policy -- and other policymakers to assess the economic environment in their state and strategies to foster business growth. high-growth businesses are one of the driving forces of the modern global economy and a primary source of job creation, prosperity, and economic competitiveness. a key component of growing state economies focused on how governors can foster an environment where small business and -- and neutrons can transform into high-growth businesses. today, governors will receive several deliverable from my initiative. the first is a report entitled "a policy framework" which

highlights six issues which can be refined to improve the conditions for job creation. the second is a report and accompanying pocket card that i brought with me that provides governors and other state policy makers with better policy directions and strategies to foster business growth. it emphasizes understanding the path away through which a small business becomes a fast-growing firm and the policies that support the transformation. finally, each governor will receive an individual state profile that provides a set of measures and information to help them understand where their jobs are coming from, of who they're entrepreneurs and business owners are, and what they're likely sources of business groups are. -- business growth are. we will continue to cover this topic throughout the weekend

when we hear from author and management educator jim collins and author and professor steven blank. of like to ask a very good -- i would like to ask a very good friend of mine and someone who has been supportive of our efforts this past year, governor year markell, our vice chair to say a few words. >> good morning, everybody. i want to start by thanking governor heineman for being a tremendous leader and his tremendous focus on state economies. he has, but a number of strategies that i think are helpful to states across the country. we appreciate your leadership. to governor mcdonnell, thank you for hosting this. we love virginia, it is a beautiful state. for a state that came relatively late to the union, this is not bad. [laughter] in case you're wondering, delaware is the first state. thank you so much for your hospitality. one of the things that is so great about being a governor is that the people of very clear

expectations about us. it is not about the speeches we give or the rhetoric, it is about whether we're improving the economic climate in our states and whether we're improving schools and whether we are being good stewards of the taxpayers' money. that is what our people expect of us. that does not mean we don't have disagreements. some of them can be strong disagreements and i think that can be very healthy thing. i am thinking specifically, as an example, the affordable care act. regardless of the governor's decision about whether to accept the federal offer to cover millions of additional people for medicare expansion, medicaid does have a state chair and different governors have been looking for different ways to try to find greater efficiencies including reforming delivery systems, expanding managed care, and handsome program integrity efforts. all that cannot stop the growth of medicaid so we will be talking about innovative strategies to lower medicaid

costs during our health and human services committee meeting tomorrow. in addition to that, later this month, the national governors' association will bring together our whole policy advisers, medicaid directors, insurance commissioners, the people who are taking the lead in our states to develop the exchanges and bring in all those folks together to talk about next steps with respect to the implementation of the affordable care act. the affordable care act is really just one part of what will happen to hear this weekend. while it may generate some heat, there is so many other areas of agreement that we want to bring to light including results from our center for best practices, sessions focused on finding the common threads that bring us together as states and we can be heard by congress.

example, governors continue to feel the squeeze on their budgets because of constraints revenues, increased expenditure, pressures from reductions in federal funding, the need to replenish reserves and to provide resources for critical areas that had to be cut during the recession. the education and work force committee will discuss the reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act, the economic development and commerce committee will focus on agricultural trade. the natural resources committee will talk about the role of states creating a modern electrical grid. the special committee on homeland security and public safety will discuss veterans issues followed by a discussion on by a surveillance. the people in washington tell us the worst day in our states is better than the best day in washington. i think there's probably a lot of truth to that. washington may be caught in the grips of partisan paralysis but in the state capitals, we really don't have that choice.

we've got to figure out ways to keep people working together so we can put our people to work. this weekend is a great platform for us as governors to work together across party lines to create new efforts to push our core priorities for word of better jobs and stronger schools. is a chance to get past the partisan gridlock that is so much defining our nation's capital and work together on solutions that will help drive each of our state's forward. it is great to be here and i'm looking forward to the meeting and i will let governor heineman take the podium and i will be happy to answer some of your questions. >> there is one final comment about delaware and virginia. in the mid 1860's, there were experiencing difficulties and needed a state to join a union to help them move forward so 1967, neb. join the union to help these two states out. [laughter] we will be glad to try and answer your questions to the

best of our ability. yes, sir? >> this morning, several of us in the room join you in a partisan political event as you gave your opening remarks here, you talked about the founding fathers and this hallowed hall and i wonder what you would think and your fellow governors would think that this is more of a bipartisan event but what do think they would think about the state of our politics in this modern age? and is it and evolution of what they practice years ago? >> >markell well that while we --jack markell said it well that we have similar challenges as ceo's and leaders of our states, we also have some broad disagreements. we discuss those openly and some of our governors only meetings. the fact that we have similar jobs is not mean we don't have

very different approaches. a lot of it is with respect to policies coming out of washington and how affects all of our state's on health care, energy, taxes, jobs, and regulation. i have been very clear that i think a lot of the policies that have come out of washington have been devastating to virginia on energy, jobs and health care. so i have a different approach than governor marquel has. some may affect his state. it may be good for his state but don't think it's good for my state without reform. these are differences we have. i can tell you the debates that took place in this building 236 years or so ago were pretty vibrant. mr. henry stood up and started talking about the crown in 1765 and his rebellion against the stamp act, he certainly didn't mince any words with that. my guess is the burgesses were

debating whether or not to have a revolution, there were very strong divisions between the likes of henry and washington on one side and then some on the other side thought we should take a very modest approach, one of the biggest decisions ever made in the history of the united states of america. so having this discussion here, while we have differences of opinions, between republicans and democrats, we know the buck stops at the governor's desk. jack and dave that said very well. we don't have the luxury of being able to borrow money in the way that washington d. we have to balance the budget, 49 of us i think have that in our constitution or statutes. we can't print money. we have very significant constraints put on everything from borrowing to other things where we have to make very specific, practical decisions. while we have a different approach and maybe different philosophies, the specific and pragmatic decisions that every governor has to make on a host of issues are important.

we have empirical measures on jobs, on surplus or deficit, on medicaid population and any number of things we are held directly accountable for for the people of our state. there is a lot of common ground i think we'll discuss today on everything from sequestration to energy to some of the wonderful joint initiatives that dave and jack put together for the center of practices and here's what's working in a couple states getting great results and we can tap into that and states may not be doing things as well as delaware or nebraska so of course there are differences we're going to have, and we'll discuss those openly and candidly as we always do but there's an awful lot we learn from each other and why i look forward to the n.g.a. meetings. >> let jack and i both respond to that for a moment if we could. in my state similar to what i heard governor marquel talk

about, my focus, the entire time nearly eight years while i've been governor is on education and jobs. the people of my state expect me to get things done. the biggest problem i have with the federal government is they never make a decision, they never act. we're foesed to do it and want to do it every single day. we make those tough calls. we may differ on some of the outcomes or whatever, the decisions we make, but i know jack, bob and i are willing to make those tough decisions and so are governors and we'd like the federal government governor about decisions and we need to know that in order to move forward with our budgets and other decisions. >> can you expand on how the act is good, is the medicaid expansion good for delaware and how would it be for the governor to be getting money from taxpayers in another state that could opt out? >> first of all, math is math.

and so what we do is spend a lot of time looking at the math and we also understand there is a significant cost to do nothing and right now the way it's been for a long time is it people aren't covered they'll eventually get sick and end up in the emergency room and that will cost all the rest of us who do have insurance and it's something called uncompensated care and the cost of uncompensated care is really quite high. as we look at the expansion and run the spreadsheets this is not political. this is literally, it's a financial analysis and what it means to cover in our case 30,000 people and what kind of resources will be available for us from the federal government and what will will it take from delaware taxpayers and my view, we're clarifying we're understanding it all properly. my view is this could absolutely be a good deal for

delaware taxpayers. i understand other states will make determinations on their own reading of the math. but for us as we understand it to this point, this looks to be a good decision. >> if you had to make a decision today to opt in or not, what would you choose? >> i'd say that medicaid expansion without reform is irresponsible. and president obama said exactly the same thing in 2009. when he spoke to the senate democratic caucus up in d.c. the system, putting more money in a system that already in my view is somewhat broken doesn't make sense. we've all, i think in previous meetings talked to secretary sebelius and others about the need to do maintenance of effort and waivers in certain areas and the lack of flexibility the states have and more ability they have to manage care and frankly the way to be entrepreneurial and

creative to fit the program that works for us, we really don't have that. we've been kind of denied that. i don't think, first of all, i can make a decision right now. i wrote a letter that went wednesday to the president and the secretary and asked about 30 questions on exchanges and about medicaid expansion. it's a 3,000 page bill. i think people are still figures that out. until we get more information from washington on some of these things, it's hard to make a decision. there were two things that came out of the court's decision that were not fully expected. one, that the decision would be made on the fact it was a tax and we thought it would be decided on the commerce clause and most of us if we were batting would have said that. but secondly, that on the 7-2 ruling the court would say it's not proper to penalize states who refuse to expand the medicaid program, not only to deprive them of that additional money but also penalize them

with that existing medicaid base and now creates new options. the original act was very punitive for states that didn't expand medicaid. this now gives some options which honestly i don't think a lot of us expected to be part of that decision. and it is only 10 days past, the secretary sent out new time lines now giving us a full two years now to apply for definitely one or level two grant funding to build exchanges. there's a host of questions about expansions and the n.g.a. just sent a letter a week ago with five or six questions to president obama and secretary sebelius we want to have answered and i have a number of other ones i propose. honestly, i don't think it's responsible fully for my state to make the decision now because there's still more information i need. >> one place where i want to comment. i do agree with governor mcdonnell that the additional reforms are important, but i also don't believe that those additional reforms have to come

from the federal government. i mean, i think, you know, we have to face the facts that in our state and in the country, we've got to move away from what has become a sick care system where providers and facilities are basically paid based on how many procedures they do and have to move towards a health care system where providers are rewarded based on whether or not they keep people healthy. that is not something that has to happen at the federal level. i think each state can come up with their own plan to do that. there's legislation now in massachusetts that governor patrick has been working on to get away from the fee for service situation and we have a couple of pilots going on in delaware. i think although in my view, based on our understanding so far, the medicaid expansion is the right thing to do for delaware. we are going to have to continue to work to move away from this sick care system towards a health care system. >> i agree with him. >> let me just add to that a little bit. what you're hearing is a great discussion and what it means ultimately is there is going to be 50 different state

solutions. and i respect the fact that jack's going one way, bob's going another way and we're probably going a slightly different way in the sense that in nebraska we believe this unfunded medicaid expansion will result in cuts to public school funding, to higher education or increased taxes, i'm opposed to that. but i also agree with jack, we all need to focus, for example, on prevention, wellness, and outcomes. i'll just pull out of my back pocket i hope everyone in this room has got one, a pedometer to keep track of your steps every single day. and as part of nebraska, we started a wellness program three years ago, and the people , all of us are a part of the wellness program have to do this every single day. our premiums have gone up less than 2% a year for the last three years. we need an electronic medical system in this country like we have an electronic financial system. we need greater hospital transparency. let's put out the internet, the

cost of routine operations for every hospital in the country so consumers can compare. all right. >> governors markell and mcdonnell. >> good, i can step out. >> it's interesting to hear you talk in one sense about how you're going to discuss all these issues, but nothing is as compelling this year as the a.c.a. and it's very timely and it occurs not only after a supreme court ruling but in the middle of a presidential campaign that certain people in the states could be front line players in. so tell me a little bit about -- both of you, talk a little about how changes things having this meeting this year instead of saying next year or two years from now when you don't have the hyper charged environment of a presidential

-- >> first, it's more fun this way. >> it seems to me every year has become a hyper charged year, that the cycle never stops, which is probably not a great thing for the country, but i think what we have to do and what i'm committed to doing as best i can is to keep the focus on what we as governors can do. i mean, this is not a party convention for either party, and i think the reason that the taxpayers of delaware want me to come here so that i can learn from other states who may have ideas or may be implementing initiatives we can learn from, just as governor mcdonnell was saying and perhaps we can do things in delaware others can learn as well. the politics will be what the politick is, i get it. as you can tell, governor and i have different approaches to the expansion of medicaid. and my guess is at the end of the day, he and i are not going to have a similar approach.

i think we're probably going to stay where we were. i'm going to listen to what he has to say and my guess is he'll listen to what i have to say. but in the end, we're looking at this issue very differently. and as governor heineman said there could be 50ivity solutions here and from my perspective, the impact of the presidential campaign doesn't enter into that. >> if i could comment briefly, we may have some disagreements on this but jack and i have been on panels together on china and other things and had a lot of very broad agreements. we talked about jobs where we have an awful lot of similarity in our approaches. in fact, what delaware does in their incorporation laws and so forth is something we try to emulate in virginia. this best practices center, we see what delaware and nebraska is doing, this is what is good about the n.g.a. where we truly can learn from the best things going on in other states and incorporate those in our state. the impact of the presidential race cannot be overlooked. we also happen to have 12

governor races so we're going to have some difference of opinion. i happen to have that other job as chairman of the r.g.a. but i had dinner last night with my friend martin o'malley and chairman of the d.g.a. and we talked about things what we're working on between maryland and virginia. it's not all about conflict. it's about work and learning with each other. i will say the presidential race does impact the health care decision because i don't want to spend any taxpayer money, either federal taxpayers or state taxpayers in building an exchange or expanding a program that may look dramatically different in six months. governor romney has said they won, i'm going to give the states broad waivers from obama. day one, i'll have a bill on repeal and replace. one thing for me practically is i don't think i can look the taxpayers of virginia in the eye and say i'm going to spend a lot of your money building an exchange where four months from now i might not need. with the expanded deadlines we

got from the government of two more years and secretary sebelius on friday, i don't think we're on a time crunch to do that but my broader point is there's no question we're going to have debates and disagreements about who should be the governors of the states, who should be president of the united states but doesn't mean in the context like that there's not an awful lot we can't learn from each other that helps our states. >> in your opening remarkets you mentioned sequestration. the president is here in the states today and tomorrow, you and other republicans have put the blame on his shoulders for the fact that these -- >> all houses and all parties i put the blame butt president is ultimately the leader just like we're the lead wher we don't have budget being done right in our states, we can't blame the legislature. we have to take responsibility. >> my question is, isn't that a tough argument to make when 60% of senate republicans and a greater percentage of house republicans voted for that deal last august? >> that's what i said, it's a pox on all houses but the president is the one that

insisted they split 50-50. this is an area i think we will be in some agreement. i talked to several of my friends that are democratic governors in the last couple days especially those that have a lot of defense jobs and defense bases in this state, they have the same concerns that i do. that is $600 billion going to weaken the united states military? secretary panetta said he's very concerned about it. and number two, with no real plan how that will be implemented from the department of defense, what are companies that are great citizens like in lockheed and drummond, how are they supposed to act? are they supposed to send out notices by november 1. there's a lot of real uncertainty and unpredictability which is devastating for the military if you can't begin to predict the next weapon system and whether the research and development money is going to go and how the military bases will be aligned. i think there is some real bipartisanship -- bipartisan

concern with this because i think the thought was this is really not supposed to go into effect, this is supposed to put pressure on eeve. you know what, we're five months away from january 1. i don't see one sign in congress right now they're going to do anything from now to november 1, which is very concerning, and so it's certainly something i intend to bring up. i know some other governors i talked to on both sides of the aisle have equal concerns about that but i say the president ultimately drives the budget and put together a budget 435-0. governors, presidents, executive branch i think is responsible for driving the budget and i think we need to do better than sequestration. >> i thought the premise of the republicans who voted against it was a very good premise of the question. i agree a pox on all houses. >> let me bring this together and it goes back to what i said earlier, the president and congress need to act because the reason they're in trouble

at the federal decision they won't make a decision, bob makes them every day, jack makes them every day and so did every governor in america and it's time for the federal government to start acting and making tough decisions. yes, sir? >> you used the word "uncertainty" and we're hearing a lot of uncertainty in the economical context. i'm wondering, your own sides from the presidential race, but as a policymaker in the state, do you feel challenged by the coming decision that will be made, even how different the philosophies are of who could win in november, is it impacting the policymaking in the states and health care is the biggest example but i'm wondering if there are other areas as well? >> it's certainly always an issue, i think for every state. we have the presidential election every four years and is a very important decision every american will hopefully turn out and vote and make that personal decision. obviously i support governor romney because i believe we need a focus in america on jobs. the unemployment rate has been above 8% in 40 months.

i'm fortunate in nebraska we have the second lowest unemployment rate in america at 3.9%. think if we had that unemployment rate in america, we'd all be moving forward, lot of these tough issues could be resolved in a very positive way. again, i'll just come back to, you know what i'd prefer? is the president and the congress to make a few decisions, get these tough decisions out of the way and then maybe go on vacation a couple years. [laughter] >> i like that. >> i think the question about uncertainty is a very good one and maybe even for a different reason. and that has to do, certainly the uncertainty makes it difficult for us as governors but the uncertainty makes it difficult for business executives who were deciding whether or not to make investments. and we heard a lot over the last few years about the hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars sitting on corporate balance sheets around the country and businesses being concerned about making investments and hiring additional people because they're not certain which way the decisions will go in

washington. of course when that money gets freed up, that's going to be good for all of our states, and so i will add some dave said what he said. i'm supporting the president because i think he's made some -- first of all, we've had 28 or 29 straight months of job growth and i also believe he's done some really important stuff on jobs, including signing the jobs act a few months ago to make it easier for companies to go public and focusing on far investment and the like. >> let's get to a few more questions. go ahead. we're having too much fun, jodi. yeah, go ahead. >> governor mcdonnell, question for you, president obama is in town. would you welcome him? he'll be only 40 minutes away from here today and tomorrow. would you welcome him to come and address some of these issues regarding health care and sequestration? you think that would be helpful if he stopped by the conference? it would be right in town. >> that's up to the chairman. i can't make that invitation. we're always graduate to have the commander in chief in town. i had the honor of greeting him

several times when he's thrown into town and with him in a couple of things especially when he came to talk about jobs and veterans. to be honest, there's a lot of common ground between the issues between what washington is trying to do and what washington is trying to do in virginia. ironically, he's apparently done some good opposition research. i notice he's going to the two places where i lived, he's going to green run where i lived to three years and glenallen where i lived for six. i appreciate him going to my old homes. i know the people in those areas and i know what they're concerned about and they're concerned about jobs and debt and deficit and energy and getting the greatest country on earth back to work and out of debt. so i hope he talks about those issues, undoubtedly the things he will say about how we get there are going to be different than our view. we've been fortunate in virginia to have a 5.6% unemployment rate and three surpluses in a row. and i think we've had some good ideas on how to get there. so this is what democracy is all about. this is what happened here 236

years ago is people talking about very different ideas, hopefully with the same ultimate goal of more prosperity and liberty and choices for their people but very different ideas. and you know, as iron sharpens ire, so does the debates between people sharpen the ideas and ultimately come out with one solution in a majority vote. that's what our system is all about. so, yes, i welcome the president here. of course i welcome mitt romney a little bit more. but whether he comes and speaks here is up to these gentlemen. >> next question. i want to try to get to someone who hasn't asked a question. >> governor heineman and governor mcdonnell. you want to see reforms in the medicare system before you're favorable for expansion and wonder if you could elaborate on what you're looking for and if the federal government gave you more flexibility with what you could do to consisting plans, you might be warmer about the expansion? >> let me talk to you about

what i prefer on more flexibility on medicaid. i wish the federal government would allow every state to determine the eligibility and benefits. what i need to do in nebraska is different than what bob wants to do in virginia, jack wants to do in delaware, let alone what you might do in new york, massachusetts, or california. so that's the first step. additionally, i think i'd like to see co-pays exist, for example, in our medicaid system so you have a little skin in the game. i think that's very, very helpful. so those are just two ideas, for example. >> actually, the republican governor's association created a medicaid reform blueprint last august that we sent to the president. still waiting for the answer, by the way. and we sent to others in congress right before the debt -- as the debt committee was meeting with some ideas we had that were policy-based, that a number of our medicaid directors around the country helped put together, they formed a blueprint for reform,

it's rga.org. so it's still there. and we're continuing to refine those. there are other ideas. jack and i absolutely agree on something very important. he said, there are many things that can be done apart from anything the federal government does that are unique to our own states on everything from revising your distributions to preventative health care to scope of practice. we've done that through our health reform issue with dr. hazel the last year and a half and are looking at state-based solutions. but ultimately on everything from dual eligibles to the things that governor heineman mentioned that address maintenance of effort and things like that. unless we get some federal relief, we're not going to be able to do some of the reforms that need to be done. >> and i think that's actually a very good question and i think what it -- what i found

interesting is two years ago when all the governors met with the presidents is bipartisan, this is the national governors association, democrats and republicans alike, he said to us at the white house, he said, i know i'm hearing request for more flexibility around medicaid, just be specific. and our experience has been he's been working with us. i heard that from governors of both parties and i think we ought to continue to have those conversations and as governor mcdonnell just said we also ought to continue to focus on things we can do within our own states regardless what the federal government does. >> let me add one thing to that. if all the governors were together, i bet we could find a solution. we just wish the congress and president would do that. >> the supreme court ruled it would be coercive to threaten states with the loss of their existing medicaid money if they didn't go ahead with expanse and that surprised a lot of governors, i think. are the governors going to be speaking this weekend whether they can challenge the strings routinely attached to other parts of the state? >> i wouldn't be surprised if

we have a conversation about that. >> are there any particular areas you think -- >> every subject matter from the federal government. every governor would like less strings attached. too often the federal government has one size fits all policy. they're developed for big cities that certainly don't apply to states like delaware and nebraska, so again, the more flexibility we could have. i understand they're going to impose certain restrictions and certain regulations but more flexibility we need. >> and this is something that is true at the state level as well as the federal level. a number of states including my own recently launched what we call a regulatory reform initiative. so what we're doing is having each of our state agencies that issue any kind of regulation, we're requiring them to have a public meeting in each of our counties where individuals and businesses can come and let them know about specific regulations that are a problem for them and then we'll look at it and see if we can get rid of them. and i think to their credit, a number of cabinet secretaries in washington have come to the governors and do the same thing.

and as an example when the governors were with the president this year, somebody asked about relief with respect to the esea. and the president's response i felt was quite revealing and he said arne duncan who will be here today, arne duncan, secretary duncan is the most flexibility guy in the world except when it comes to having high expectations of students. and i think obviously what all of us would like to get to is similar conversations with each of the agencies. >> we can take just a couple more questions. go ahead. >> going back to the question asked earlier about mr. obama and i think governor mcdonnell feeled it a little bit. a simple question, was he invited in one form or another whether through the white house or campaign to attend the function? >> neither he nor governor romney were invited to this event. we always invite the president of the united states to our meeting in washington, d.c. >> what's the nature of the conversation you expect to have this weekend about medicaid expansion?

are you trying to seek some kind of bipartisan statement that would be made to the administration or to congress, or what do you hope to come out of this discussion? >> i think you can see from the conversation already, i wouldn't expect a statement coming from the n.g.a. what we're trying to do is the n.g.a., is there is a whole series of questions that we need answers. we need new federal guidance, for example, from the department of health and human services as a result of a new supreme court decision. a number of governors have already sent questions to the secretary. i hope we can coalesce around a series of issues that we know we need more information before we make final decisions. many of us would like to know exactly what would be the federal state partnership, for example, if you move forward on an exchange? how would that work, exactly? how much would they fund versus

what we have to come up with? how would you interface with our medicaid programs? i think it's more trying to determine what are the unknowns and try to get answers to those particular issues. ok. who wants the final question? all the way in the back. >> question for governor mcdonnell. i want to follow up on a comment you made earlier today when you said governor romney's record at bain capital should not be part of his, quote, record? could you expand on what you said? >> were you there? >> nope. >> you can't believe everything you read in the press now. >> no, what i said was clearly, he was employed for 15 or so years at bain and what he did while managing director, certainly fair game. and i tell you, that record is about 120,000 new jobs, pertinent investments and a lot of startup companies. in america you have the

opportunity to succeed or fail and sometimes you do both when you're in business. it's the story of the american dream and the free enterprise system. what i said was absolutely wrong and should not be part of this and is extremely disingenuous as part of the administration and their team in the campaign is to say things that happened after mitt romney met pain capital as the managing director and went to rescue the olympics and ran probably the best olympics of the program in 2002 in salt lake city and to attribute those things to the degree there even was any policy that promoted outsourcing, that's not fair. that's not honest, and if he's got those things on the ad, he needs to pull them. that's what i said. but i tell you what, not -- again, i lived in these couple of communities from the question before in both glenallen and deep run. you know what, they're generally not concerned about bain capital but they are concerned about the tax policy of this president which is

increasing taxes, about $500 billion through obamacare and more tax increases now that are going to take place for anybody over $250,000 which is about a million small businesses across the country. they're concerned about energy policy. i've been very clear it's a rich energy state and the policies of the e.p.a. and administration have been devastating to and offshore industries in virginia. my broder point was, of course, the president can pick on the record. just tell the truth. the "washington post" and factcheck.org. i know, i need a shotgun quoting the "washington post." both of them have said this wasn't true. he wasn't the managing director so don't put this as part of his record. and actually, and the president said this very well when he was campaigning back in 2008-2009.

he said if you don't have the record to run on, you try and play small ball and scare the people about the opponent and that's exactly what he's trying to do. jack and i and dave all agree on this -- the biggest issues facing the country right now is how do we get rid of this crushing unemployment that's depriving the american dream and how do we get the greatest country in the world with $16 trillion in debt and growing by the minute, how do we get a handle on that? for 30 years, every president butt bill clinton has watch combsh ratcheted up the debt. this president has done it more than others. >> i'll be brief. clearly, number one, bain is fair game. number two, mitt romney's governor as massachusetts is fair game and it was not a

great record when it comes to job creation. number three, right now off president who is actually trying to make sure -- he is focused on building middle class and he's focused on a tax policy that is going to help the middle class. wicked have a very long debate -- that's really not the point of this session, but what we look forward to doing under the leadership of governor heineman is how we as governors can help drive our own states and then country forward. >> i know you're all focused on 2012, but for a moment let me have you focus on 2016. i'm working with these two guys to.com a bipartisan team that's going to run for president. i don't know who's going to be at the top of the ticket. i've agreed to be their chief of staff to keep them in line. thank you very much.

[applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> you can watch more of the 104th national governors association meeting this weekend here on c-span. that's live coverage of the n.g.a. this weekend here on c-span. >> this weekend on book tv, growing up in the shadows and secrets of the rocky flats nuclear weaponry facility. kristen iverson looks at the effects on the environment and the people. saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. and sunday, peter collier on

the life of jean kirkpatrick. >> carter was the governor with the magnolia accent and she saw the dominoes start to fall. by 19 9, he was? -- 197 she was in full-fledged opposition to carter and what he represented. and particularly crucial, she saw the fall of the shah and the leader of nicaragua away, a couple of lacerating experiences. >> the woman behind the reagan cold war doctrine sunday at 9:00, and at 10:00, anthony swofford on life since leaving the military. all part of book tv this weekend on c-span 2. >> governors from around the country met with education secretary arne duncan and former education secretary

margaret spellings. he called for high-quality education programs in disadvantaged areas. ms. spelling spoke about closing the achievement gap and where education standards fall short for minorities. they're just over an hour and a half. >> thank you very much for being here. i would like to call the meeting of the national governors association education work force committee to order, and i want to thank all of you for joining us. i am bill haslam, the governor of tennessee and the vice chair of the education committee. our co-chair is unable to join us but governor hickenlooper is with us and governor, thank you very much. we've been cheering of you and praying for you and thinking of you through thewide fires so thank you very much for being here. a little bit of housekeeping before we start.

all these meetings are open to the press and all meeting attendees, please silence your cell phones. all the governors have briefing books. to my right is the staff director for the education work force committee. i think we have a great opportunity today. we're going to hear from -- my notice say two distinguished speakers but the truth is they both can get at the heart of the matter before us. the thoroughization of the f.d.a. they've been at the heart of pushing for change for more accountability in education. they may have slightly different twists on what that would look like. but it's safe to say we're looking at raising stts in education, trying to recruit more great teachers and increasing the discussion of accountability. our two speakers would be at

the top of the list in the country. without question one of the biggest priorities for all of you -- us as governors is education. i'm willing to wager there's probably more bipartisan agreement on education and what needs to happen for our states to be great on this topic than anything else. it's tied to the development of our work force and bringing the jobs to our states that we want. all of us have spent a lot of time looking at education reforms. i think it's appropriate today that we're going to focus on the rethoroughization act. as you remember, in 2002, over a decade ago, the no child left behind act was signed into law. the law shone, as secretary spellings wrote, a bright light on the needs of children in

accountability performance. one of our two speakers share is the unwillingness that some children can't learn learn and the achievement gap. but many governors felt that the law maybe undermined a little bit of governors' authority. we would have liked to have seen a few more things left in the hands of governors. many of us felt that schools were making dramatic improvement, that that wasn't recognized enough. i think there is a bipartisan agreement in this room that there's some reform needed in no child left behind. we're making progress. our value-added scores showed the greatest improvement since we've been tracking those. our state, thanks to my predecessor was one of the states awarded top funds that were put into good use and we've implemented a new teacher evaluation system that we think

is changing the face of education. like many of the states here, we've applied for a waver from the no child left behind. we also realize that for some states those waivers don't work and it's just provided a temporary solution for all of us. the question today is what should education policy look like in the future and we're honored to have both of these folks. i would make this one note. the national governors association, combined with the state and local governance committee, the state legislator, national association of counties, all of whom urge congress to rethorls esea. and so i would urge you all to stay engoinged with your

delegation. there are very few things all of us are wholeheartedly interested in as education. with that, i'm going to turn it over to my co-chair and friend. >> thank you, governor haslam. he's got at least four or five minutes of stuff about tennessee and all the incredible work they're doing there. it's tennessee. it could easy by -- easily be 15 or 20 minutes. they're one of the ladiers in education. we have the former secretary and secretary of education here. let's make sure they have as much time as possible. thank you very much for the comments about the fire. we did have four months without any rain. actually my wife was going on a family vacation to ireland and said she was going to pray for rain. by the time she got there, we had three days of rain and

mudslides and she was very concerned that she'd prayed too much. we were dealing with different fears. secretary of education served as seven years of the chief executive offer of -- officer of the chicago public schools. he was on the vanguard of education reform in this country. before going to chicago public schools, he ran the area education committee, focused on advancing education opportunities in economic little disadvantaged areas. from 1987 to 1991, secretary duncan played professional basketball in australia and it's his play as the nba all-star celebrity game is any indication, he's not lost a step. welcome, mr. secretary. margaret steel lings serve is as secretary of education from served as the domestic policy

advisor to president bush. she led the development and implement nation -- implement station of the no child left behind act. now she is strategic advisor to the u.s. chamber of commerce. i think it's worth pointing out, as governor haslam was saying that this rethoroughization of esea is of crucial importance and that we all are going to have a real role in this. here we have two leaders of the last decade in education. secretary spelling, who worked for a conservative, some would say moderate republican. secretary duncan who's work forward moderate, some would they liberal democrat, but what they have both focused their sights on is dramatically increasing the standards but which we hold the expectations and the standards by which

we're going to hold student achievement to and then creating a level of accountability so we can measure that success and i think that the version of the reauthorization of the bill -- that's a house version and a senate version, they're not that far apart and i honestly believe that if we talk to our legislators, we can play an active role in making sure it does get through. they've already passed a transportation bill. why not an education bill? with that, secretary duncan? >> thank you very much. i'm thrill told be here with all of you and thrilled to be here with margaret. she and i had a great working rhythm when i was in chicago and she had my job. both of us don't care a whole heck of a lot about politics but in helping our country go where it needs to go educationally. i think we all feel -- we have

a 25% dropout rate. a million children leaving our schools for the streets each year. i ask each oaf you to look at how many ninth graders and 12th graders you have in your state. i was in one state that said that somehow other states were robbing them of all their ninth and 12th graders. the fact is the streets are taking those young people. a generation ago we led the world in college graduation rates. now we're 16th. the only way we get there is through a lot more folks graduating from high school and ultimately graduating from college. and finally, and you guys understand this much better than i in a tough economic time, do we have a jobs crisis or a skills crisis? i'm more and more convinced we have a skills crisis. i've met with so many c.e.o.'s

myself and with the president who say we're trying to hire right now and we can't find the employees with the skills we're look for. education has to look in the mirror and say what he can we do about that? we have to challenge the status quo, we have to get better faster than ever before. obviously, you guys are much more astute politically than i am. congress is pretty dysfunctional these days. you guys are probably working together better than folks are there. the law is five years overdo to be authorized. redesperately hoped it would happen. it didn't. as governor haslam said we went out and harned with many of you to provide waivers trying to build on the strength of the existing law.

so far we've partnered with over half the nation states and want to continue to do that. ultimately at some point congress has to fix it. the best thing congress could do would be to take the best ideas through the states that have come up through the process with great, great local ideas. the more you guys can speak as much as possible on a united voice, and it may not be united on every issue. but when we look at the 26 that we've approved, nobody can tell you which governors they came from. and the common ground i think would be a tremendous framework for what reauthorization would look like. for me, the big thing is students be college or career red. if they're graduating from high school and they're not ready, we're setting them up for failure. there's been a myth perpetuated that is 100% inaccurate.

we said that and did it in writing. recently to prove to point, we approved virginia's governor mcdonnell's waiver. for me it's about high and the governor and i have had great conversations on that subject. second, reading and math are important, but many waiver appalachian -- applications you're looking at social studies, science. performance in the a.p. classes. not looking at just one test score, looking at growth and gain and progress. if you have the best third grade test scores but have a 50% dropout rate, you're note changing students' lives. look at increases in going rates. going to colleges without having to take remedial classes. there's been a lot that folks have done to reward

high-performing schools and districts and for you to provide more flexibility and we think that focuses -- focus on success and not just failure is really important. and the final piece that i think folks didn't fully understand, but many of you in your applications reduced the sizes at looking at disadvantaged students. so latino, african-american students, students with special needs. governor in your state, an additional 155,000 children with special needs, disadvantaged children, are now part of the accountability system in your state that were literally invisible in no child left behind. thousands of more students, hundreds of additional schools. we think this happened do a tremendous service to the country. so the more you guys can

collectively speak with as close to one voice as you can, the more you can urge congress to act together. as governor haslam said, if there's any place where people can come together it's in education. when is this going to happen? honestly, i don't think it's going to happen tomorrow or next month or next week. it's probably post the election but at some point having you guys lead and drive that change we think is hugely important. the final thing is we have to think about all of this is to what end. not just to have schools graduate from high school but to have a lot more people going to some form of higher education. two-year colleges, vokesal training. the if the has challenged up us to lead the world again by 2020. as i said, we were first.

now we're 16th. we need to challenge you to continue to invest at the state level at higher ed. higher ed has to become more productive, first quarter, has to focus on completion. young people and families have to make smart choices. it's about shared responsibility. but where we have states where less young people have access to higher education, that's not in anyone's best interests so i want you to continue to think about what we can do. how we work along that fweeb career continuum. i can't thank you enough. some of the governors here are some of the most courageous, thoughtful governors and you're not just doing a great job for your state and your children. you're literally helping lead the country where we need to go and i thank you for your partnership. my job is to make every one of

you the best educational governors your states have ever seen. if we're knot doing that, i think we're not doing our job. so please challenge me and my team to help every one of you be absolutely as successful as possible. that's what our country needs. >> thank you, governor. arne, it's great to be with you. we are friends and have worked together for a long time. it's terrific to share this program with you. i am thrilled to be with you all governors. i had the honor to work on behalf of two governors in the great lone star state and spent most of my professional career at the state level, around the slate legislature and in the governor's office. so i know what you're looking at this balancing budgets and all the various challenges. every governor is an education governor because the vast

majority of your budgets are usually spent on k-13 -- 12 and higher education together. i want to start by reminding folks what no child left behind was really about when we came together in a very, very bipartisan place. and i do think this is a place where we can and do work together. there's more in common i think at the policy level more often than not. when president bush first embraced the notion of no child left behind and worked with senator kennedy, not -- god rest his soul and worked with senator boehner, it was simple. the law said we're going to get nearly every kid on grade level within a 12-year period into subjects reading and math. no child left behind was focused on the area of federal

policy that we've always focused on and that is our poor, minority and disadvantaged kids. title i, i.d.a., those biggest federal investments have been around those populations. when i was in office i used to ask parents when do you want your child or grandchild on grade level? they always said if my kid is in the third grade i want them doing third-grade level work. sadly, we are woefully short of that. some, including my friend, secretary duncan, have railed against the standards being too low and even on those state-established curriculum standards that some have observed as too low, we are falling short of kidding the kids, a lot of kids, to those minimum standards of the basic skills of reeleding and math. we are about to refrain the

discussion around higher standards, which absolutely we are all for, and picking up the pails. but i'm a tiny bit skeptical. i guess i'm from missouri in this sense, governor that we're going to somehow leap ahead now when our pace to date has been a little slow. so, like all laws, and you all deal in legislation, no child left behind was enacted based on what we had at the time. at the time we had single-digit numbers of states who has desegregated data. we couldn't do a growth model because we haven't -- didn't have underpinings in place. before i left office i gave states the power to do that. now we can and should move to that smarter way of doing business. but it was based on what we knew at the time and i am the first person to read the parade

that this law can and should be improved and updated. it is five years past due and i think that's obviously at the hands of the congress and we'll get into that a little bit as we discussed. but i also want to remind everybody not only what the core principles were but that the law has worked and you've seen it in your own states. if you look at that flat trajectory prior to the 1990's, or during the 1990's, it was pretty discouraging and in every single one of your states we have begun to focus more intently on the needs of poor and minority students because of this focus on deseg grated data. we're in this attention about the congress vs. the administration/the waivers. as encouraged as i would be about action, i'm discouraged when i see, in both parties, some of the things, some of the

core principles that are left on the cutting room floor at the moment. and most namely, consequential accountability, meaningful consequences for low performance. love it or hate it, no child left behind touched every school in this country. if you were a hispanic student in suburban virginia or texas, that school district had to attend to your needs. and so i worry that transparency alone for the majority of our schools is not enough to really get that trajectory going, but time will tell. i certainly understand why secretary duncan has had to use his waiver authority and i commend him for that. i used it myself. he needs to build a bridge for you all to a reauthorization and obviously many of you have taken him up on the offer and i

guess more to come. and i understand why he's done that. but i also want to point out some concerns that i have about what i'm seeing around the states and what i would commend you to challenge your state departments on. because i know from my gubernatorial days -- you know, you set the policy. you're at the 30,000-foot level but you're not going to be bound reading the fine print of every single one of your waivers. the first thing i you would say is that they're extremely complex and complicated. yes, no child left behind was a little bit of a crude instrument and we should improve it, but now we've gotten so much complexity it's hard to understand. so if i could get that first slide to come up. this is, and i'm not going to name any names here. this is a statement waiver formula, essentially. and this is very, very typical. this state says they're going

to calculate a two-year blended composite success rate and then the gaps in that success rate, then weight the gaps, create the gap index and write the -- rank the schools by the gap index and i would wonder how many parents or teachers even can understand all the "number crunch"ing that goes into that formula. this is from another state. this is a z-score. this particular state calculates a new method of calculating achievement and this is the z-score cheat sheet. there they go cheating again. just kidding -- that has this very complicated formula that i would challenge few of us could understand let alone a minority parent or a disadvantaged student, or a parent of any kind. i'll get to slide three in a second. but i want you-all to look at

the fine print because we're going to have a crazy quit that's going to vary around the country. it represents a retreat from a true focus around every kid in every school in favor of a focus around, you know, the bottom five or 15% of schools. and, you know, obviously, i know that there's only so much bandwidth, but there's plenty of poor, minority, and disadvantaged kids in the remainder of those schools. the choice consequences throughout the states are large little gone. those options for transferring to other public schools or forgetting tutorering or other supplemental tools. those have been waived away but you have asked the secretary for that authority and he has granted it. the last slide -- oops, i'm not

very good on this. i'm a local control kind of gal, believe me, i am. states -- this is a particular state that has -- this is our no child left behind plan and their trodgetry and the promises that were made them. they have now since gotten a race for the top funding as well as a waiver and their plan said they're now at 45% proficiency in 2010-2011. but they actually promised that they would do that in 2006, so e state is not unique. they are behind the curve. this does not even lay on much higher standards, much more rigorous work, much more diverse populations all while and whether we will be able to meet these things. i would ask you to go back and ask you questions.

first, how will we explain these complicated and complex systems to our public, to teachers and parents. i would start with understanding ourselves and being able to explain them yourselves. often, that is not terribly easy. what will happen to poor and minority stories in the 85% of the school's who -- poor and minority students in the 5% of the schools who will be affected? what about choice? what options might parents have without the power of the options that they have in no trouble behind? i agree with secretary duncan. all of this -- obviously, none of this is for anything if we're not taking it to the next level with respect to higher education.

that is an area that i worked on an awful lot when i was in office. i had a commission, including one of your governors, jim hunt, and a star-studded cast that created the test of leadership plan that come in addition to framing the data, which we all know and secretary duncan has released more of just yesterday about the gaps in our system, but there is a plan here about accountability and transparency and the kinds of things, technology, that we ought to be doing to move the needle there. just last week, the chamber of commerce unveiled the report card on higher education. . with that, i would conclude and i think you for the opportunity. >> thank you, speakers. you have left the sale of time for discussion. we will take advantage of that. i would love to have a great dialogue here across the table.

>> thank you. we are really grateful to have both secretaries here, secretary dunc and former secretary spellings. whitmire your service and appreciate what you have done in trying to raise the bar for education. and improve transparency. i come from a state that is known for spending little money on education. we're 51st in the nation, including washington d.c., for people spending. but we have achieved good results. the latest results have was 13 when it comes to achievement scores on s.a.t. test scores. the u.s. chamber of commerce says we're the best value for education in america. we have a low cost high return rate. that being said, i do have concerns and we have been critical of no child left behind in our state and we have some

concerns about race to the top and how that intertwines with common core. i think for a lot of us as governors, you mentioned that we're the education people and i think each one of us has to have that is a priority in our state. we recognize the connection between good skilled labor and the ability of it -- of a growing economy. but we have trouble with the one-size-fits-all approach. we get that out of washington, d.c. on some many different things. education is certainly not the only thing. but it gets frustrated. i believe that, when we have the common core, which was developed by the state's -- you have talked about that many times -- this is not washington program. but when the administration connects it with the race to the top brand and says, it won a waiver, if you want to get some

additional money, a race to the top grant, you have to be a part of the common core. the strings that we put with the money it gives the sums frustration. i would trust every governor here, every state to find what is in the best interest of their population, they are unique student population, the unique demographics, the regional differences. i would trust each one of them to find the best way to educate their students, educate your people. why not then come up with a formula based on your student population and just block grant the money to us and let us find our own way to achieve the success? i ask both of you that question. >> just to be very clear, we did tie that to common core with waivers.

virginia did receive a waiver, not a part of common core. for what you said, my numbers will not be exact, but about 20 states actually dummied down their standards, including the state that i am from, ill., so they did not act in the best interest of their state or their young people. they acted in their best political interest. in many states, including mine, we were actually lying to children and telling them they were ready. the epiphany that i had was that we were doing a lot of work on chicago public schools to get students to hit the state proficiencies court and we had some outside analysis that showed that in -- destined for hitting that and the numbers getting better and we were patting ourselves on the back. we actually found -- we have an outside consortium look at our data and they were woefully

unprepared for college. the vast majority could not make it. the only kid that had the chance to be successful in college were the students at the advanced level. so we stopped paying attention to what the state was doing and try to challenge ourselves there. so given history, close to 40% of the country actually reduced standards to make politicians look good. there is another benefit. >> tell me how that looks good. i don't understand that concept. tell me why any governor would dumb down their standards when we are not only competing nationally, but globally. if we do not have that kind of skilled labor, we will not only have a tough time competing, but we will not win. >> i am just giving you the facts. i cannot rationalize it. did it -- there is no justification for pig that is just what happened. for me, the -- there is no

justification for it. that is just what happened. idea.n't a washington it was a utah idea and a missouri idea and these were the best ideas coming forward and we think those kinds of partnerships. but there is an important role for us to play to hold people accountable. some of the initial round and conversation with states around the waiver package, there are some states where i think there is a laser-like focus on the children must in need. some states started to walk away from that a bit. we had a challenge that and push back. but where folks start to take less years they the folks and the children who live below the poverty line, black, latino, home students, when states start to walk back from those responsibilities, there is an appropriate role for us to challenge that.

we were able to get to a better place. i think that is the checks and balances, the push and pull. i think there is an appropriate meeting of the mines there hopefully. >> great question and a complicated one. we have a system right now that has 50 speedometers, if you will, this says we are going to slow. in no child behind, we decided, because you're paying the vast majority of the bill for education, that it was right and righteous for you all to set the standards and that we ought to say are we meeting them? our whole vision behind notre behind, -- behind no child left behind, plus tax payer accountability and responsibility and in a global competitive world, those things added up to, if we are going to send money, we ought to get something for it. but it is right for us to let

you figure out what that is. but we ought to know how fast they going and how are they doing with respect to the kids that are in the purview or of the most concern. so that is why we have the system we have. i will tell you why states game the system. they create standards that kids, the population that they have can gobble up, can work on. and then they raise them over time. this has been our history since the 25-year-old governor's summit and all those sorts of efforts. what i worry about come as enthusiastic as we all are four common core and college-ready standards, right now, we have a darn few kids getting over a relatively low bar. in exchange for higher standards, we will retreat from the transparency of the power of accountability that says what about the speeding up?

how're you doing with hispanics and african-american kids? someone can tell me i can -- that i need to run a marathon. but i don sure will not run a marathon if i cannot run 5 miles. we do not have a lot of states that are running 5 miles right now. now we're saying let's run a marathon. but what we -- but what will happen as we read calibrate and redirect? governor, you do. you lead the way on the bank of the investment. but i want you to go home and look at the achievement and your project achievement of your hispanic and special ed kids, the growing population. i am not saying this like i don't get it. i worked in the grid lone star state with lots of disadvantaged kids. a lot of this is a political equation. gov. terry cannot say that no one is getting out of houston isd this year because we can do

standards for students this year. higher standards, less power of accountability. >> i have one illustration where i think -- every day, i challenge myself with what is the appropriate federal role. just to give some kudos to gov. hassling, my numbers may not be exact, but when he raised standards, it grade math, they went from 91% proficient to 38% proficient. and the achievement gap actually doubled. that is tough stuff. but that is the truth. and we have to start telling the truth and have to deal with that reality. part of our role is to give cover to those political leaders were willing to do the hard stuff, willing to raise the bar and willing to shiny greater light on the achievement gaps. if you don't do that, then the incentives go the other way and

you start to cover things up and its stars to get mushy. and that is when the kids that you care most about get lost. >> but how do we explain to parents whose kids can i get over that lobar yet, the 50% of minority kids were not getting out of high school? what do we tell them when we say that it is time to run a marathon and your kid can read -- your kid cannot read. >> i feel that we decided to raise the bar. part of our job is to define reality. we don't disagree on that, i know. but to me, that his -- when we raise their standards, we were not raising them to an impossible place. we raise them to where they had to be if there were going to compete. >> absolutely, that is right. but the thing that cannot get left on the cutting room floor is the consequences when that

doesn't happen >> that is a great point. you hear a lot of agreement from loss on those consequences. the hard part is deciding what to those consequences look like for a school that is starting from -- forget what happened in the past, but tod in the low point, what do those consequences look like? >> again, that is why i think that the people at the local level understand better. in my state, we do have a growing minority population, hispanics, who are coming into the state. it is a challenge for us to raise the bar for them because they come from a place that is not as adept in education. we're trying to change that in many different ways. they come from foreign countries and getting a high school education for them is something that has never happened in my family before. but we have to push them beyond high school and into college.

we want to have two thirds of our adult population to have some kind of post-high school certification or degree to raise the bar, to raise achievement for all people, in particular minorities. we have a number of indian reservations. again, the tradition we have there has not been one of educational achievement. we're trying to do what we can on the reservation to help them appeared but that is my state. what happens in kentucky and other states is different. i think we have to empower and in cent. if i don't do my job, somebody will throw me out of office and hire somebody that will do it. it is is it better for to come from washington to tell me what to do or is it better for it to come from the local people with a bottom-up approach as opposed to the one-size-fits-all? >> thank you for your leadership

on this issue. secretary duncan, i will change gears just a little bit. while we have you both here and i appreciate you both being here, i have a question that is of interest to me. secretary duncan, we had an opportunity to visit the same topic and i would like to revisit it. when i grew up, my dad got out of school in eighth grade. when my brother and i went to law school, he said somewhat tongue-in-cheek and not entirely, he was concerned that come after law school, we would know how to do nothing. [laughter] so this brings up the question of career technical education. in wyoming, we get a lot of questions. where the welders that's where the plumber's? where the electricians? as we look at this, you do great in k-12. i think we ought to set the bar -- i worry about setting the bar to low. we ought to set the bar high.

we ought to be challenging their states. but as we look at this, you have qaeda's 12 and you go to college and get a four-year degree. where does the career technical education come in? we cannot forget that -- i sit in my office because of a lot of people who know how to do a lot of things. there are some great careers out there can welders can make a great career. where does this come into play? what are your thoughts on career technical education and how do we integrate this into the discussion? >> hugely important. i always say four-year universities, two-year community colleges and technical training. we have $4 billion that we put behind this. frankly, many programs across the country today are outdated. you have some extremely programs leading to real jobs in industry cert. you have some programs that

help folks with skills that disappeared 20-30 years ago. these are tough economic times. are asking congress for an additional billion dollars. we want to double down. there are so many jobs out there that are not happening. the community college side is hugely important. where real training in community colleges are leading to real jobs in the private sector. that is through wyoming your response and or whoever it might be. we want to invest in quality --

that is through wyoming or utah or wherever it might be. we want to invest in quality. we want to do more and we want to be a better partner. >> i also think, when we talk about high school graduation, if everyone in high school thinks that their next step has to be a four-year college, that is the cause of some of the high school dropouts. on top of that, we have to stop saying that, if you have a career technical path, that that is somehow lesser path. they're both equally important. it is a contributor to high school dropout rates. i appreciate your focus on that in your care and explanation when we talk about post-k-12 and what that could mean. >> there'll -- their summit false debates in education that waste so much time and energy -- there is so much false debate in

education that waste so much time and energy. we are preparing for to few people for college. we're preparing for too few people for careers. i want them to graduate from high school and college career- ready and let them figure out what their career is. >> the only thing i fear it's -- most of us are old enough to remember how billy went to shop because he was not smart enough and you somehow ignored. these new types of vocational jobs require high levels of math and certainly reading and it is not a mutually exclusive deal. i would echo everything that he said with the admonition that we pay just as much attention to those kids as we do to the rest of them. >> i think that is an important point. you have to have great skills in

math and reading. it is exactly as you said. we want both avenues. but we don't want to put a stigma on one avenue versus the other. being able to prepare both is the way to go. >> we have the blueprint for reauthorized in the perkins that. this is something we want to strengthen with congress's support. >> another change of topics. we all are focused on common core and raising standards and accountability. all of us have a terrific career college moms working in our state. but, again, from anybody is experience who has been in a classroom, we also understand fundamentally that the problem doesn't start and the kid is 11 or 12. it begins in prenatal care and that will step into

kindergarten and grades 1-3. i hear your comments on how the country has changed, if we really have changed, in a surly and learning. -- in early learning. in my state, my family doesn't take fancy vacations and i don't have anybody to read to me. i come to school in september or late august with a three- four-month disadvantage. how do we as a country begin to face up to those responsibilities? if i get a sorry teacher three years in a row, i am dead in the water. we talk about career and college and those expectations. i would hope that we never lose our focus on where it all begins. and it is right there in the pre-k and 1-3 time.

>> i will start this round. this is a texas answer, not washington answer. i don't think that head start can or will adequately meet that continuum of need that you talk about. and the smarts states are the ones getting the best results have powered up on full-day kindergarten and teachers who are taught in the early grades and are focused on reading and something in that arena that we do better than the rest of k-12. that is to start to use time and people more effectively so that we get out of the cookie cutter model and start to give kids who need more intensive interventions more intensive schooling during the summer or more days or more time on task. and as you rightly suggest, better our best people.

we do the opposite in education often. if you have a ph.d., you are at cream puff high. and if you're not, you work with their most challenged kids. certainly, early childhood and smart interventions in the early grades can really pay big dividends, i think, for them and for us. >> i appreciate your leadership so much. as a country, we are crazy in this one. every single study talks about the best long-term investment we can make is in high-quality early childhood education. we don't need more studies to tell us that. we know the long term savings and people -- less people going to jail and less people on welfare. getting our students not at 5, but at 0, 1, 23 -- is the best

investment we can make. in education, we all play catch- up. at universities, 30% of kids need remedial classes. closing the achievement gap is having children enter kindergarten ready to be successful. to-year-old and 3-year-old don't vote and don't have lobbies and do not have unions. it is tough when you have tough budgets. but when you have high quality programs in disadvantaged communities where your increasing taxes, that is the best long-term investment your states can make. this darkly, our department has been part of the property historically, our department has been part of the problem in some cases. we have put over $600 million out to states, including yours, to increase access in disadvantaged communities to make sure it is high-quality. we want to continue to invest. we're in it for the long haul.

but i just sat in my daughter's kindergarten class back in chicago where she was lucky enough to have two easily educated parents when she came to school reading and she had other children in her classroom who barely knew the front of a book from the back of a book. and imagine how difficult that is for a kindergarten teacher. we have to invest. historically head start has done some great things, but there has not been a great focus on quality. for the first time, it will not just be an automatic check. you have to show some results. yet to show what you are doing in programs that are not doing a good job at showing an academic trajectory. >> gov. herbert and i are doing a seminar tomorrow afternoon in north carolina.

we are really evaluating kids at home and teachers in real time every two weeks. at the end of the day, we will know when a kid does not get ahead. thank you. >> governor walker and then governor nixon. >> thank you, governor. thank you to both of our guests. we talked about this back in february. we talk about this a recession, appropriately so. both sides of the i'll talk about this. we obviously raised some concerns about states issues and a lot of us are appreciative of nuts is considering waivers from the states, but based on

continuing the debate about high standards. i applaud you both. i have more of a statement and something more directed at the congress, talking about what to do with this act in the future. going back to something that barry said. -- a lot of us are appreciative, continuing the debate about high standards. this is less of a question and more of a statement. it goes back to something gary said. our head of education is independently elected. getting involved before third grade, making sure that kids are reading at grade level. we spent about a year working on about 40 stakeholders, everything from teachers, school board members, business leaders, trying to put together a comprehensive stakeholders group to create school district accountability measures. besides my self-interest, my biggest interest is to my

employers. more than any measure or standard, even more of late, i have huge gaps, like most of you probably do. i also have huge gaps in advanced manufacturing, all of whom require not just a high- school diploma, but the education after that. they are saying, our schools are not cutting it. not just in our poor areas. to many of them are producing students who are not cutting it. students who are not cutting it. maybe more addressed at