walk levels of the white house. when i covered the pentagon 20 years ago, you could walk around theithere. that has been shrunk down. i am let in under the same terms that most other reporters are. it would be terrible if the president were deciding which reporters they were letting in. we behavior and we report accurate and truthful information. host: neil munro, the daily caller, part of our week-long look at online media, thank you. tomorrow, talking point memo. that will be at 9:15 every morning this week. that is the end of "washington journal."

we will take you live to the national press club where an education event is going on. there is a news conference on the school choice program specifically geared in d.c. to is just beginning to . [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

panelists. the remainder of the time will be reserved for questions, which start with who, where, what, when, why, how, not on vacation. i also want to ask -- not pontificate should. i also want you to turn off the ringers on your pagers and cell phones. we do not want to be rude to our speakers while they are talking. dr. welner? >> thank you, jamila. thank you. good morning, everyone. education is shaping up to be a major issue in this education cycle, in this election cycle -- excuse me. the president has devoted this past week agitation, starting with a radio address on saturday -- this past week to

education, starting with a radio address on saturday, continuing to the swing to ohio, and, yesterday, in las vegas talking about budget cuts and class size. school choice is a big part of the education discussion. governor romney has made the voucherization of title 1 and i.d.e.a. a special centerpiece of his policy. what he is promoting is federal vouchers. his proposed policies would mark a huge change in the paroled. president obama -- in the federal role. president obama has strongly supported school choice, particularly charter schools. he wants to scale up nonprofit management organizations that are thought to be successful in working with students in high- poverty communities. but, as we will discuss, vouchers and charter schools are only two of the many types of

school choice. one voucher or charter policy can look and act very differently from another. what is school choice? how can we most sensibly understand and use school choice? gary miron and two of our colleagues -- we set out to answer that. our project resulted in the book that jamila bey just mentioned, "exploring the school choice universe." the main rationale for the project was that, while there are other school choice books, they cover only one or two topics or one or two types of choice. first thing we did was think about all the issues prompted by choice-based policies. is surprising how many issues there are.

we have basic philosophical and democracy issues. we have questions about legality and litigation, about how parents make choices, who chooses and why, how choice schools are held accountable, how choice is funded, what incentives arise out of those funding choices. teacher quality issues. questions about innovation and innovativeness. effects on segregation and stratification. the competition in effect. and effects on measured student outcomes. what is the research -- what is the evidence based on all of these issues? we started this thing about, what do we mean by "school choice"? it is not one single thing. we identified a half dozen different types of choice. charters and daughters were two of those. we also pointed -- charters and

vouchers or two of those. we also point to homeschooling, cyber-schools, open-enrollment policy is, between-district school choice, and tuition tax credits that provide a public subsidy to private school tuition, similar to vouchers. i call these neo-vouchers. before i hand thsi over to gary -- this over to gary, i want to give preliminary answer to the question "what is school choice." in reality, it is a broad policy tool that can be included as part of a complete policy -- a complete education policy. it is not a policy in itself any more than professional development is a policy in itself. at the most basic level, school

choice is simply an approach to student assignment. i might tell you, for instance, i favor school choice. my state and can be coherent in the sense that i might be a libertarian -- my statement can be coherent in the sense that i might be a libertarian. but your next question should be, how do you favor structure in or using school choice? what does your policy, using school choice, actually look like? let me and with something that i hope will provoke some conversation -- let me end with something that i hope will provoke some conversation. it seems like our politicians and candidates for office are not asking these questions. it seemed like it are wrongly looking at school choice as a policy, not as a tool -- it seems like they are wrongly looking at school choice as a policy, not as a tool. we have policies that have a set

of rules arrived at by default or political pressure, rather than careful and evidence-based collaboration. if we do not ask the right questions, we do not tend to get the right answers. thank you. gary? >> thanks. good morning, everyone. i want to cover three general points. i want to talk about the arguments for and against school choice. i want to share a few comments about the overall prevalence of school choice, how many students are participating. and i also want to talk about the point of the importance for policymakers to be thoughtful as they plan, develop and implement a school choice programs. one of the key arguments that we see about school choice is that it will bring in that entrepreneurial. and-- entrepreneurial spirit to

our education system. on the other side, opponents say that competition also comes with profit-making. we are bringing in private groups that are going to bring that entrepreneurial. -- entrepreneurial spirit and there will be winners and losers. there is also concern that we will lose control of the schools mostly through privatization. another argument for school choice is the way that -- when parents can look at their students unique needs -- students' unique needs, they can identify the schools that will be most useful to their students' learning styles. they can be matched with students and we will have better schools. that is one argument for. another -- on the other hand,

opponents say the sorting -- school choice can promote segregation by race, class, by ability, and by the language of instruction. this is something opponents are concerned about. on the one hand, some of the arguments for are about quality. this is a way to pursue quality. opponents say -- a quality. we have to be concerned about the quality -- opponents say equality. we have to be concerned about the qualitequality. we want to provide a better basis for policy makers and others as they think thoughtfully about school choice. let's talk about problems and how many students we had in school choice programs -- let's talk about prevalence and how

many students we have in school choice programs. close to 30% of the nation's public school students are choosing another school than the one-day are assigned to. over the years, there has been -- other than the one-da they ae assigned to. we have a chart that depicts different types of enrollment. it is the intradistrict with programs where most of choice is taking place. close to 9 million students are participating in that type of choice. there is a new program -- new reforms taking off. charter schools continue to grow as an option. today, about 1.9 million of our students in the nation are in charter schools. homeschooling we consider as an option of choice. we have about 2 million students in the nation not participate in

home schooling. this is more than what we see in many other nations. that is about 3% of the students in the nation who are in home schooling. we have a couple of the things that are growing more rapidly, particularly virtual schools. today, they number about 250,000 students. it is growing rapidly. we are seeing more attention to this, especially with many states lifting their caps on virtual schools. when a virtual school opens, they can often open with 4000 to 5000 students in the first year. some of them grow to be more than 11,000 students in just a few years. alas part i want to take up is about the need for more thoughtful policy making -- last part i want to take up is about the need for more thoughtful policy making. last year, i shared testimony about the importance of a

thoughtful policy-making when it comes to school choice. the senator who was sponsoring the bill to lift the cap on charles tools and virtual schools in michigan -- on charter schools and virtual schools in michigan said i was against school choice. what am i supposed to tell these 40 families who have researched and found a really successful charter school? he was suggesting he did not think those families should be able to take care -- take a vintage of that choice. i was very polite, but i -- take advantage of that choice. i was very polite, but i reminded him of all the other families and students who are left behind. we have to think about all of these groups. if we are going to look at the education system as a whole, we do not want it to be winners and losers. we want to find a way that the system can serve all. in the book, we encourage policymakers to revisit the overall goals for our education

system. looking at that goals, then go ahead and plan, design, and implement school choice reforms that are 1 to pursue those goals -- are going to pursue those goals. do not let school choice be an end to itself, but a tool to pursue those common goals and also to pursue the best interests for all students. thanks. >> thank you, dr. miron. let's go down the line. let's have you, dr. adam schaeffer, a policy analyst at the center for educational freedom at cato. >> my perspective is different -- ok. all right. we are on the opposite side of the school choice issue a lot of times. i find that i often agree with you on some particulars.

not surprising, one of those things i agree on is the interesting aspect of education tax credits. vouchers get the lion's share of the attention. it is a great overview of what is going on in that policy space. you hit on something that is increasingly important and has been the concern of my own. choice is not a policy. there is a huge amount of diversity in the choice policy space. i would disagree a little bit in the fact that i think it can be a policy. saying i support school choice is almost meaningless. randi weingarten of the teachers' union, the most ardent free marketers -- they say they support school choice. what does it mean? does it have any meaning left? i think not. you have to look at the specific

policies. charter schools are still government schools. the approval of pedagogical approach rests on the authority of a government-sponsored board. private schools cannot apply, obviously. private operators can run the school. they cannot teach religion in the school. the diversity is limited by the prospective and vision of the charter of the risers -- charter authorizers, ultimately. the vouchers open up options in the private sphere, but doctors use government funds. -- but vouchers used government funds. this usually provides accountability of some sort to taxpayers who fund the program. tax credits are entirely funded within the private sphere and distributed through private,

nonprofit organizations. the taxpayer is allowed to direct those funds to the school that comports with their values and they think is doing a good job. there are layers of private accountability there. accountability directly to the taxpayer that does not necessitate this regulatory structure that we find, invariably come in dr. schools -- invariably, in voucher s chools. everyone is a choice supporter. we have to decide what kind of supporter we are. it is not good enough to say i support school choice. we need to get into the nitty gritty of the policy details, what is really going on. there is a huge variation. charter authorizers. how a charter can be revoked. how often that happens. on what criterion.

what kind of regulatory structure do we have for voucher schools to assure that there is accountability to the taxpayers? is parental choice enough? there is a huge fight in indiana right now over this question. should creational schools be allowed to participate in the voucher programs? should islamic scools? -- schools? with education tax credits, are three layers of accountability enough? is that enough for us to be happy with? i think this is important.

the outcomes of these programs, in terms of their impact on achievement and other measurable affects on student performance, on graduation rates, is hugely important. as you pointed out, people support different policies for multitude of reasons. the ability of a parent to take control of their child's education and direct it in a way they see fit is a hugely important thing and something that should be a huge part of the consideration, not just get lost in these metrics. i would point out there is the release of a study looking at the graduation of fact of the voucher program -- private-about your program in new york city. these kids -- private-voucher program in new york city. these kids are going to college.

i will leave it at that. i think we probably have a lot to discuss. i encourage everyone to take a look at this and really consider the differences between these different options. it is not just a name. it is not just increasing choice. all these systems have potentially radically different results. thank you very much. >> hi. i am alex medler. i find the book interesting. i recommend you dig into the details. i will speak a little bit about choice in the journal and more about -- in general and more about charters. i agree that a key lesson we should take from this is that details matter, policy matters, structures matter. and i would add that who is

acting matters. for the last few that have come out, author risers -- authorizers do not even make it into the index, not to mention getting their own chapter. the spirit is correct, that we need to look at the details. we need to look at who is acting. one of the things that is important, as you look at more different topics and you take into account different purposes, it becomes harder to simplify and to say, what is the bottom line. for a reporter or policy maker who says, is it working or not, it depends on what you think working is and what your goal was. that is a frustrating answer, but it is pointing to where some promise is. it has some promise when we realize -- the decisions that, let's say, a school board or

commissioner of education makes about whether to approve a particular charter school affect that school. they need policies and tools which help them make individual decisions. those individual decisions, just like in markets of choice -- the actions of policymakers come together to get the overall picture. charter schools, on average, perform equal or better than traditional schools. that is not such an important question. what is important is the distribution of the schools. the fact that we have too many bad charter schools, but a bunch of good schools -- that is something we can act on. we cannot act on the data that charter schools, on average, are a little bit better than worse. we will never get rid of the charter school. we will never get rid of tories. it is already there. people want it. -- never get rid of choice.

the policy is in how people make those individual decisions and decide which school should close, open, and replicate. those decisions can be informed by real data, too. i am impressed by asking, let's understand the nuances and the difference. i agree with the conclusion that policy matters and the tells matter -- and details matter. let's say there are 10,000 people choosing the school. i would argue that we should add everybody who bought a house in that area. housing is one of the most segregated things by race and class in america. there is no option to not choose

your school. you do so when you choose where you live. that is a very inequitable choice the first place. i look forward to the rest of the discussion. i am curious to see which of these we can dive into today, knowing that we cannot get into so much of the meat. there is a lot that is worth exploring and getting down to a finer level -- worth exploring. getting down to a finer level is where this book is going in the right direction. >> good morning. i think because i am the furthest from the phd, i get to speak from the ground a little bit more. we work locally with urban districts, primarily, on community issues associated with education reform. a lot related to facilities, as it works out. we have ended up in this choice space because of the educational-facility planning issues and also because of the

policy issues related to planning. one of the things -- as we look at choice, we see it as a discussion related to brown v. board. it was a student-assignment case that went to the supreme court. it is obviously a very contentious thing, student assignment. choice itself is a very contentious issue, not just about personal choice, but also about the set of systems that can respond to that. in the district of columbia right now, the chancellor is just going to start a process of looking at the student assignment policies and the choices that parents have. one of the things we have looked out already, to some extent, the data -- what we are finding is, who is really choosing? of the parents the ones controlling that choice -- are the parents the ones controlling the choice? is it the operators?

in the district of columbia, you have the right to get in a lottery, but you do not have the right to stay at that school. there are several differences. i am delighted to learn about the book. for the communities on the ground trying to figure out where kids get to go, who is going where, we really do need this larger frame to look at it. it is not necessarily as ideologically-framed. greater equity? better quality? hm. sometimes, sometimes not. it is a very complicated issue. i think that one of the things we are very concerned about is that we actually think that democratic process is associated with navigating these various reasons to have a choice system

-- that needs to be at the heart of it. it is not clear. it is not simple. parents who should have the forum to look at religious differences or quality differences or instructional program differences -- they should do that, but they should be doing that in public space around a publicly-government -- we believe -- and elected body that really is trying to navigate our biases, our values, and is part of what makes us a community. some of what we have seen in the district of columbia -- and we are working with folks in chicago and in new york city -- is that, when the system is defined to be, what is the best choice for your child, as opposed to sit in -- to the citizenry saying, how to we want

the next generation to learn from the knowledge -- how do we want the next generation to learn from the knowledge we have acquired and how do we want our communities to be calm and that we have really lost the fabric to community that is the essential -- to be, that we have really lost the fabric to community that is essential to society. one of the characteristics of choice is that it is not placed- based. -- place-based. there are enormous issues around the segregation of our communities. in many places, our communities might be more integrated and our schools. -- integrated than our schools. wrestling with that is part of what we're doing. other cities and communities are trying to figure this out. i think it is a real service, or

honestly. hopefully, we will be able to translate the word you have done and get it in the hands of districts and communities -- the work that you have done and get in the hands of districts and communities. thank you. >> thank you, one and all. let's open the floor for questions. we have a bit of time. let's get started. all right. i guess -- >> can i jump in? i want to pick up on the last zero that was made. -- the last point that was made. in a lot of cases, what we see in choice schools is an application of the stratification we see in neighborhoods. school choice advocates look at segregated areas and said, hey, it does not have to be this way.

we do not have to have neighborhood assignment. we can open this up. that will alleviate a lot of what we see -- i think it was what alex mentioned. you buy a house that is in a neighborhood that serves a particular school. it does not have to be that way. the idea of using school choice to alleviate neighborhood segregation was part of the initial motivation. it is depressing that we see the opposite happening, that we see a layer above -- of stratification. we're talking about stratification not just of racially-a identifiable school, but also by class, test score, english language ability, special means -- not just of racially-identifiable schools, but also by tass, test scores,

english-language ability, special needs. when we talk about the overall patterns, that is what we see. it does not have to be that way. we can design school choice plans with our goal in mind and then work backward to how we structure the role of choice within a policy. omaha, nebraska, has an interdistrict programs that serve to alleviate stratification and segregation. other places have tried this. there is a plan in north carolina which uses family income and wealth as a tool within the choice plan to make sure that schools are not as stratified. it is important to think of

school choice as something that can be inserted in a plan that can accomplish larger goals that we have as a society. one of those can be raised -- segregation, stratification. >> this is ducktails -- this dovetails with something that struck me, the assignment of children to schools. that term, student assignment, i find really offensive. the notion that some government board or political board or whomever it is is assigning your child to the place that they are supposed to learn. when people talk about larger goals, serving a larger goals of society, especially in the context of using your children to pursue those larger goals, i get very nervous. are any of these larger goals more important or, for that matter, better served by a

government's structuring a plan that it is for a parent to have their child pursue the goal of having their life be as best it can? parents have a greater incentive to pursue these goals. it does not get lost in the system. when we talk about student assignment and serving the larger goals of society to the environment they are supposed to be in for 12 years as the basis for their life outcome, that makes me really concerned. >> there is compulsory attendance in the united states, virtually state-by-state. parents are compelled to send their children to school. essentially, the government body

is a locally -- in most instances, a locally-elected school board. well i know that you would think of government as -- whil i know -- while i know thqat you would think of government as "evil, bad," it represents the collective view. >> do you think a collective you should raise our children? but that they are not -- collective view should raise our children? >> but they are not education our children. >> i would like to address another specific piece of what you just said. card -- charter schools of the rise -- charter schools of the

rise and -- charter school authorizers. when we have a goal like "make sure schools are not stratified," there is no abstaining or redesigning. there are 1000 entities who have to make yes-or-no votes. denver assigned technology to create a more diverse school. they had decades of white flight. the intentionally put it in a place -- they designed a program that would be representative of denver's population.

west denver prep has almost 100% low-income minority kids. it has incredible results. proficiency rates you would not see elsewhere. that school is intentionally all more one race and one poverty level. if we are going to make sure schools are not ratified, would you have denied one of them? denver looked at those decisions and said, we need more elementary schools that serve ell kids and we need them in this area. they are creating more schools with similar results. those schools are also all minority. is not a bad thing for the society? should we weigh the -- is that a bad thing for the society?

should we waive the greater the greatgood -- weigh t er societal good? for the school board member, should i have more good ones and fewer bad ones? >> to dr. miron. >> that is the crux of the issue -- values. we talk about how important it is for government and policy makers to articulate goals and carefully implement plans, but it is really about values and whether we see education as a public good or a private good. adam is talking very much about the private good. parents. some kids will get good options. some will not. we believe school choice can serve both.

it can serve the public's broader goals. there can be a thoughtful charter school initiative or a thoughtful use of planning that can serve the public good and still promote choice options, but still pursue those publicly- stated goals that are envisioned to serve all students. >> so, the public good versus private good thing is a serious issue. but, in my mind, the public good is a byproduct of the private good. the public good are the ramifications of -- the benefits of children being better educated and having a better life outcomes. externalities of those. that is a good argument for subsidizing public education,

especially for low-income children. no one is arguing that. people who supported vouchers or tax credits -- these are ways of ensuring that even the poorest are ensured enough funding an opportunity to get a good education. in other words, there is no conflict between the public good, which is a better- educated, more fulfilled citizenry. that is the product of good education. what system gives us the best education? what system is the most feasible? you could do a class-size reduction and spend billions more to get it down to like five kids per class. you could try interdistrict choice or charter schools. sometimes, there is evidence that magent -- magnet schools or charter schools better. i look at the random-assignment studies. they demonstrate, if you want

to, for less money, if you want long-term achievement impact, you go with -- the net effect is positive or a wash, at worst. these are tiny programs that could not even remotely be called a true market. the question for me is what public good or what public purpose is there beyond a better-educated populace? if we do go beyond those, what right does the government have to decide, well, your child should not have religious education, or they need and have only this pedagogical approach -- they need to have only this pedagogical approach? >> there is a lot there, adam.

part of it is that claims about outcomes of different choice programs are really problematic. there is a chapter written by gary. it walks through all the different studies of different types of choice. charter schools. -- charter schools and vouchers have been studied a lot, particularly charter schools. other types of school choice have not been studied nearly as well. in terms of really being able to make strong judgments about how well they are doing. with regard to charters and the conventional vouchers, i think a wash is the most global statement we could make. there have been a lot of voucher studies. in the analyses done -- we

often see re-analysis of the same data reaching different conclusions from the original authors. even those studies tend to show a wash with occasional bilps -- blips of success. >> that this is not the case, actually. balance of the studies -- small, but significant impact. they are called "meta-studies." >> meta analyses are very different. >> i understand that, but when you look at the totality, it is, at worst, a wash. the schools are keeping up with improvements from competition in the private sector.

there is an extremely good study on the florida program. it is a tax-credit program showing that the students maintained parity with equivalent students in the public schools. >> so, i -- >> it is getting hot and heavy up here. >> i will not go back and forth. clearly, we disagree. i also want to get to this issue. >> what do we disagree on? >> quite a bit, actually. the main point you report -- you make is . joyce's driving the overall public good. there was a cartoon -- the main public -- the main point you make is parent choice driving the overall public good. there was a cartoon -- "it

wasn't our first choice in school, but we had a groupon for it, so what the hell." [laughter] sometimes choices parents make are strong the evidence-based, sometimes they are nonsensical -- are strongly evidence- based, sometimes they are nonsensical. also, knowledge and skill and understanding information are not always available. alex medler and i go bac kk a decade or so. we have had a lot of conversation about this topic of how do we make school choice most effective across our

society, how do we overcome these kinds of obstacles that some parents face and other parents do not. >> i want mary to respond. and i will go to the audience for questions. >> for me, the argument about who is getting the better test scores should not be the heart of it, especially when we are, for the most part, talking about margins in any of these systems. it is a marginal change. i would argue that -- again, the importance of voice and communities really wrestling with these things is critical to what we are as a society, to not stratifying by religion, to not stratifying by race, to not stratifying by income or culture. this is spoken as a parent who

went through d.c. public schools with three of my children in a bilingual setting where they are mostly salvadoran refugees and african americans. there was enormous value to us wrestling with trying to understand each other's culture and values. i think we tend to want to go to our comfort zones. i think part of what public education does -- and i think some of the charter schools work at it intentionally. i would argue that many of the traditional public schools do not do it well. it is not that it is solved there, but i think that wrestling with this in the community is an absolutely essential part of why we are a

civil society, at best. and what we need to do in order to retain some of that stability. -- civility. >> we're going to ask you, sir, to ask your question. wait for the microphone. thank you. >> i have a couple of questions. i don't think i need it. are there many schools that you enter by taking a test? you would get integration that way. for example, a school i am familiar with in cincinnati, you have to take a test to get intot th -- into that school. that school has been there for, i think, many decades, and it

seems to work well. that is one question. the other is, when you have these stratified schools, all white, all black, are the faculty's integrated -- faculties integrated? in an all white school, do you have many african-american teachers? and vice versa. >> i can take both of those on really quickly. the second question, in general, the teaching force seems to be a lot more white and female than the overall student body. there are schools, particularly, i think, some charter schools serving areas that are largely latino or largely african- american will make an effort to have the teaching force that is more reflective to that population.

teach for america, for example, another organization, has tried to diversify the teaching force a little more. there are -- there is some recognition of that and some attempt to address it, but, overall, the teaching population tends to be more female and why. -- white. there are new york city test- based schools. there have been several attempts to try to tease out what is going on in terms of equity at those schools, in terms of whether or not that test-based process is fair and equitable to students. in new york, we see a lot of whiter and wealthier student populations than in the city as a whole. the measurement precision of those tests that are used tend

to have a wide error band. if you think about presidential polling where they talk about plus or minus five, you have students being included or excluded from those schools when there is really no difference in their test scores. >> ok. thank you. >> my question is for alex and gary. alex, you talked about the importance of the role of authorizers. and you argue they need a chapter, if not more. the importance of them being able to close down low- performing charters. in states like ohio, michigan, florida, arizona, we see an extraordinary number of very low-performing charters that are not being closed down. i think gary has written about this.

i would like your perspective. your work for the national association of chartered authorizers. what are you doing to encourage them to close down low- performing charters? >> that is an excellent question. we are doing credited. we share the observation that there are too -- we are doing quite a bit. we share the observation that there are too many charter schools that are operating that should not be. it depends on the number and proportion. it will change dramatically. wherever you go, there are charter schools that are unlikely to close. i asked people, in your state, how many charter schools are operating that he would not send your kids or your friends kids to -- that you would not send your kids or your friend's kids

to? there are almost non that are closed for the wrong reason. we need to ratchet up -- almost none that are closed for the wrong reasons. we need to ratchet up the tools. we need to have them have performance frameworks that measure, with the balanced scorecard, a number of measures. we try to match those to the contracts. we work with state policy makers to recognize the legitimacy of those contracts and expectations. we work with it to give the authorizers the information they need and make clear the process is not about who screens the loudest, but what is best for kids -- who screams the loudest, but about what is best for kids. they need to have the will.

there are things you can do in policy and practice and collectively with communications to make it happen more often. we are encouraged that it can happen and we're working on it a lot in the next few years. >> when we look at charter school results, it is important to recognize there are very big differences between states. when we talk about those differences, some states are doing better than others. in part, i think it comes back to the values issue. when we see bipartisan support for a charter school law, we tend to see smaller numbers of charter schools and more of a focus on oversight and quality. what we see a more partisan approach, we often see the values and in -- values coming in, the belief through competition. the more we get, the more competitive pressure will be applied to the public schools. only look at the overall evidence, the states with the largest charter schools -- when

we look at the overall evidence, and the states with the largest number of charter schools tend to perform less school. it is the states with the smaller numbers and foreclosures th -- and more closures that perform well. it is important to send a signal that schools will be held accountable for their charter could be revoked -- accountable or their charter could be revoked. there are successful charter schools that are often overlooked because so much attention is put on the schools that are scandal-ridden and struggling. >> i would like to add one other point. i do not disagree with what you are saying. we have some states with such weak or tied laws that nothing is happening -- or tight laws that nothing is happening. you need it to be on merit.

i would agree that quality control matters a lot. we want there to be a large, vibrant, successful charter sector. there are amazing comic innovative things going on in the chartered space -- there are amazing, innovative things going on in the charter space. if we can address the problems of failing and festering charter schools, those rock stars and innovations will be much more credible. policy makers will not put the clamps on them. the impact will be much greater. we consider the activity to strengthen the closures and to strengthen the reader is a very pro-chartered -- the rigor is a very pro-charter step. >> there is an interesting tidbit. i would use life skills charter in denver, which i think was finally closed down last year,

but the process took, like, five years. one of the things that was going on there also raises an issue we are seeing with cyber-charters. they were a mission-driven school, reaching out to kids who would not be successful at any school. what we are trying to do is not so much be a last-chance school, but a school that is driven to serve a particular part of the population. of course we are going to have low scores. we have recently worked with cyber-charter schools, and we hear the same complaints. when you look at the outcomes of these large for-profit companies operating cyber-charters, we see very poor measured outcomes. a big part of the response has been, well, that's because kids to -- who opt in are not

successful in britain order schools. we are serving -- in brick and mortar schools. we are serving a population that would have low scores. let's see where the kids start out. let's see where they move. another part of serving a disadvantaged community -- there is a question as to how disadvantaged the cyber population really is. we also see it there is a lot of mobility. kids moving in and out a lot. that makes it very hard to measure growth. the kid who was there last year or even this fall is not necessarily there in the spring. you have issues with attrition and selection that are very difficult when you're talking about figuring out whether these schools really are doing well. that is part of the reason it is difficult to close some of them. they have a response to the simple "your kid's test outcomes," for example. >> extremely at risk kids are a

challenge in the space. states and communities need to wrestle with what is it we expect and what we want to do when a young person is 18 years old to 20 years old, 16 years old to 20 years old, still entitled to go to the public schools, still reading at a fifth grade level. what can you do before they turned 21? first, we need to figure out which schools, districts, charter, cyber, are serving populations this challenged. we need to decide what it is we expect schools to achieve if we are going to evaluate them for it. denver, at school, they used a performance framework. the state develop a definition of what counts as a school that is an alternative-definition campus. they rate the schools so you can see the distribution among schools that serve kids that

challenged. if you wrestle with the values about what to achieve and what to expect, and putting tools place -- tools in place to measure it, you can act. >> to circle back to one of the things that keeps coming up -- who decides. who decides where parents are allowed to go or what is a good school? the groupon comment about a parent choosing a school because -- it is agroupon joke, but there is a sick underbelly to that. too many parents are stupid and careless with their children. they do not have enough information, they do not care enough they're not smart

to figure out what is best for their children. i find it really offensive. most parents care enough about their child and know enough to determine better or worse. we see this in voucher programs and charter school programs where parents line up around the block for lotteries to try to get the kid in a school they know is better that is -- better than where they currently are. that is the fact of life for a lot of kids at the lower end there are parents who are hopeless lost causes. up here not talking about people on the farm margins. but for the vast majority of low-income families, they do know enough to know better or worse. even the cheapest car on the market today will still get you to work. that's not true of education.

the worst schools, a lot of them in this country, do not educate children to a degree where they can function at a basic level as citizens in this country. that the framework we are talking. about i want to really high like that, because sometimes it gets glossed over are stupid. >> what can they do? >> the question is whether they are more likely to choose the in the current system or if they are better at discriminating than a government-appointed board or a government-authorized board? >> we're running out of time. i need you to be brief. >> i can be brief sometimes. adam has a strong skill at pulling my chain. i think it's very important to understand we are starting off by assuming every parent fears

about their child. there are some who are dysfunctional. it's not a matter of caring. it's a matter of efficacious ness. the solution is not to figure out a way to make every parent make the right decision between a good school and a bad school. a solution is to have a system that drives all schools toward excellence rather than a system that stratifies between using the example of the mercedes and the hugo. if we have kids in the hugo class room, we have a problem. whether that can about through a traditional assignment process or a school choice process, it's a problem. understanding that choice is just a tool to get us there helps us to shape policy so we get there. >> thank you.

ok. >> i want to fault on what he said but adds something related to the campaign this fall. i find the automobile analogy really bad. if i'm buying a car i looked at the kelly blue book and re-book are pages and look at consumer reports. there's ways on reading a car on performance and quality and what people gag about them. one of the earlier questions it, people were rattling off states. i was struck by how many of those states are states in play in this fall campaign like florida and ohio. it just seems like in many of these states that are in play, this choice debate is really going on. i know that there have been reports that cyber schools are doing terrible in michigan and pennsylvania, but they were expanded there.

before the education commissioner just resigned over questions about assessments, i think. it seems like people are out there in the state's very confused about this issue, and in particular how to gauge schools, whether it's right for their children. just another observation. when i was in pennsylvania couple weeks ago i saw more commercials for k-12 than for the presidential campaigns in a state that is a key state. if i was a parent watching tv, that looked like a car commercial to me, not a way to independently assess whether that was the right school. for my school. >> i just wanted to respond to the car analogy and to your statement that is a problem for kids to be in a

hugo. the cheapest cars on the road today are more reliable than a 30 years ago. something's to consider, whether it has leather interior, how fast can it go, a lot of the aspects of cars and the differential between them are the bells and whistles and things not central to their functionality. right now we are talking about whether we have functional education for poor children, and we don't. even the poorest family in a market has access generally not to functional items. if you subsidize that, then they can buy with the middle class can buy. i don't think the distinction is as big as you think. we are never going to eliminate differences between people. people have tried to eliminate poverty and the generally ends up with a lot of dead people.

can we make this better and do the private-sector alternatives to a better job delivering what we all walked? fair to sayt's there is hyperbole. >> let me speak to the one part of the question about what is happening during the campaign season and what's going on here. hats off to the editors of this book for trying to focus empirically and to explain there are many differences to this, big challenges, nuances, hard to do in a book. for a campaign it harder to get down to the sound bites. it is the sound bites that are likely to appeal to people's values. i come from colorado, where we have as many people in charter schools as we do exercising district choice. we have a ton of people making choices.

when you talk to parents they don't really think about which type it is and what movement they are part of, very often. they pick schools and move around and go to them. the evolution -- the school board members say that i cannot really be opposed to all family exercise in choice. it's different than it was -- it has shifted over time. the public is looking for schools that they want to be good. sometimes we have rhetorical debate that gets off on particular is without realizing most people just want good schools and they are looking for quality and other things they value. are making choices through a variety of mechanisms. people who are governing these systems, they deal with the details and the politicians support choice and good schools in general and that bipartisan. presidents have supported charter schools since the

movement got started. both parties, multiple administration's. it's been a bipartisan ding especially at the national level. >> yes, and i would still say that the debate should be alive and well, because i am not sure it is sustainable. i'm not sure that the position of the president and the bipartisan thing that you should grow the charter sector is really sustainable. i'm not sure that it does not create more stratification, that does not create more confusion for parents. i would really question, as we work with districts where they have been closing and turnaing around schools, whether it's philadelphia or new york or newark or pittsburgh, parents holler about it. it takes five years to close even a bad school because it's really a problem for families if a school closes. i don't think we are at all on a

path that we should say we have sort of got a paradigm shift that we need. i think we are very far from it. hopefully, these kinds of conversations will help us a little. >> i think we've got a great idea for a daylong panel. one last question before. i do, this is at the conclusion of this wonderful discussion we have had, i do need to point out there are number of upcoming events at the national press club. i would like to draw attention to a few of those. october 2, there will be a national press club luncheon with arne duncan, the secretary of education. that's at the press club. september 13, there will be a luncheon with the president of the international brotherhood of teamsters. september 6, kathleen turner, actress, will be speaking at the press club. on september 12, tony perkins, president of the family research

council will be talking about a number of things in addition to the horrible shooting that happened at his office in chinatown. very last question goes to the gentleman in the back. >> i'm interested in finding out to what extent for-profit schools are a factor in primary and secondary education? are they an increasing presence and is there data comparing their performance to public and other non-profit schools? >> right now we are seeing for- profit schools largely out growing and extending through the charter school sector, about 35% of the nation's charter schools operated by because education management associations. half of them are for-profit and half of them are non-profit. states where there is larger concentrations of nonprofits,

they tend to perform better. states with high concentrations of for-profit schools tend to perform less well. the research on a for-profit schools, and after depend on what they say, themselves. they tend to say they do really well. independent research shows they are not performing very well. there has been a lot of concern recently about the level of profit making. that frustrates me sometimes, because i always thought wonder, especially when these concerns are raised by policy makers. why shouldn't we be concerned about that? they are for-profit companies we have invited into the education sector. they are doing what they are designed to do, which is to pursue private interests and pursue profit. the big dilemma is, coming back to the issue of a thoughtful policy making, how do we put in place the proper incentives and the rights safeguards so if we are going to have these operators in the public school sector, how can they pursue the public good in the public's interest?

they are increasingly getting attention because of the level of profit from some of the companies that game the system. but they are doing what they are designed to do. it is an issue for policy makers that we have to think about better ways to put in place of safeguards and incentives so they will pursue the public good. >> all right. i want to thank our panelists for being here. it's been a thought-provoking conversation. and thank you to our c-span audience. have a wonderful day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> a quick reminder, you can see this program again at the c-span video library at c-span.org. republican mitt romney will be in new mexico this afternoon promoting energy proposals aimed at creating more than 3 million new jobs and energy independence beginning in 2020. this plan would open up more areas for drilling off the coast of north carolina and virginia. cutting in burma and regulations. and giving states more control of energy production. you can see his comments live at 12:55 eastern on c-span. we would like your reaction after the speech.

we'll take your phone calls and tweets. tonight we will look back at paul ryan's comments on some of the major issues of the campaign, including. the federal including here's a look. [video clip] >> as you know, the obligated debt to our kids is 49 trillion dollars, i have heard. cbo estimates by 2020 the entire federal budget will essentially be interest on the debt. so security, medicare, medicaid. the reason we have these huge debts is because no party is able to on their own address these problems, because the other party would simply attack them for it. what mechanism is going to have to be put in place to try to address these long-term budget issues, medicare come medicaid, social security? >> you're right. this has been very vexing. if republicans say fix social

security, democrats demagogue them. and vice versa. both parties use of political tactics to attack the other party for try to tackle these challenging issues. we should not be afraid of that. i plan to produce my own reforms to get the debate going, to get a dialogue going in this country so we can figure out how to fix these problems. to answer your question, one of the things we ought to boosting its the way our federal budget process works, to ease the way we do accounting. you're talking about accounting with john spratt. he and i agree on a lot of things. we agree that the federal budget process is broken, does not reward tackling the big issues. it makes it easier to spend and tax more and hide money in the federal process. we need to make the process more enforceable and more accountable. accounting changes we can do recognize and bring on the books these liabilities. these liabilities are not

recognized. those liabilities are not on the books. the way we do the accounting in the federal government, if you are an american corporation, you would be in jail. recognize the liability is we have to the taxpayers on the books. we should do that. it would make it easier for us to tackle these goals. we have to have budget enforcement at the same time. that's why i'm a fan of spending caps that are enforceable by law so that congress can force those spending caps. john and i need to get our parties involved so that we can agree on fixing this process so that the process and better rewards the kind of dialogue we ultimately have to have to fix these entitlements. >> congressman paul ryan has appeared on c-span more than 400 times. tonight, a look back at his words on medicare, social

security,. and the,. the managing editor of the hill newspaper on that. that's tonight's starting at 8:00 eastern. [video clip] >> i'm not in the habit of breaking my promises to my country. neither is governor pailin. when we tell you we are going to change washington and stop leaving our country's problems for some unlucky generation to fix, you can count on it. [applause] we;ve got a record of doing just that. the strength, experience, judgment, and backbone to keep our word to you. >> you have stood up one by one and said enough to the politics of the day. you understand that in this election the greatest risk we can take in stride the same old

-- is to try the same old politics with the same players and expect a different result. you have shown what history teaches us. at defining moments like this one, the change we need does not come from washington, the change comes to washington. [applause] >> c-span is aired every minute of every major party conventions since 1984. our countdown to the convention continues with less than a week ago and still are live gavel-to- gavel coverage of the republican and democratic national conventions of, live on c-span, c-span radio, and streaming online at c-span.org. it starts next monday with the dearnc convention with chris christie, and john mccain and the jarrett bush speaking. democratic speakers include julian castro and delivering the keynote address. the first lady michelle obama. and former president bill clinton.

>> attorney general eric holder is speaking this evening before the national lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender are association. he's expected to discuss civil rights regarding gay and lesbian issues. of coverage starting at 7:30 eastern. afghanistan war commander general john allen said today the coalition forces are working very hard to address recent attacks by afghans on their military trainers. general allen this morning expressed confidence in the overall war effort, saying taliban attacks have become increasingly localized, affecting less of the population than in past years. this is about 45 minutes. >> good morning in the pentagon briefing room and afternoon in kabul. i would like to welcome back general john allen, u.s. marine corps, commander of isaf and u.s. forces afghanistan. he joins us as isaf commander.

he was here in person in may of this year. we are happy to welcome him back the satellite to provide an upgrade on the progress we've made in the afghan campaign. since he's joining us through satellite, a reminder, there are sometimes slight audio delays. general allen will make some opening comments and then will take your questions. i will turn it over to you, general. >> george, thanks very much. good to hear your voice. i cannot see anyone this morning, but it's good to be with you ladies and gentlemen and good to be with you again to answer your questions. before i take your questions, i would like to make some brief opening remarks. it's been a busy summer for us. in ways not readily evident to most outside afghanistan. it's been a highly successful summer. a coalition and afghan forces

have maintained unrelenting pressure on the insurgents. we have denied and disrupted their operations and have largely pushed them out of the population centers. we have limited their freedom of movement and interdicted their cladistics. we have taken scores of their leaders and fighters off the battlefield. we have systematically separated the insurgents from more and more of the afghan population. insurgent attacks, while still in discriminant and deadly, are increasingly globalized, affecting an ever shrinking proportion of the afghan population. the insurgency we face today, while still active and dangerous and capable of inflicting harm, is trying hard to inject its strength as its position continues to slowly erode. we have achieved this success while continuing to move the afghan national security forces into the lead. partnered operations have increasingly been led by afghan

forces. the insurgency is today confronted by a rapidly transforming and increasingly capable ansf, which is bearing a larger share of the burden, a larger share the sacrifice. as we continue to mourn our own precious and honored dead, we recognize that our afghan partners are now suffering the preponderance of the friendly casualties. their resilience, reinforced by the commitment of the international community to stand by afghanistan well, after well as set a powerful and disheartening signal to the insurgents. the insert -- for the insurgents to prevail, they will have to keep up their increasingly costly fight for least another decade. to be sure we have a significant amount of work yet to do. some of that work will be deadly.

with 28 months left in the isaf mission, we are forging ahead with the process of transition. ultimately, our goal will not only be achieved by that which will be secured by isaf forces but primarily our goal will be achieved by afghan forces. as the afghans to assume full responsibility for the security of their country, our support will continue. this campaign is a continuum through the end of 2014 and beyond for creating a series of conditions that will ultimately leave afghanistan as a sovereign state, secured by a capable afghan military and afford it the time and space to develop its institutions of government. we aim to leave behind a stable afghanistan, a contributor to the stability and prosperity of the region and never again a

safe haven for terrorists. it remains our objective and we are on track to achieve it. i know you will have questions about insider tax. we are working that issue very hard with our afghan partners. -- insider attacks. and it's a top priority for me. we are conducting a complex campaign, but we are also dealing with these so-called green on blue attacks. we will continue to achieve success in this campaign, but we will deal with these threats as well. so the campaign is far from over. the solution to this problem of green on who will be found by the growing strength every day of the green and blue. with that i would be pleased to take your questions. good morning. >> we lost some of the audio. we cannot hear some of the top

of your statements. if there ever any key points you would like to address, feel free to make those. if not, we will go straight to questions? >> let's just go to questions, george. >> general allen, a question on the insider. insider yesterday president karzai's office said that after having studied the problem they have come to the conclusion that it can be attributed mainly to foreign intelligence essentially brainwashing afghan recruits. do you buy that? >> well, the reason for these attacks are very complex. we are going to look at all of the reasons. i will tell you that i am

looking forward to afghanistan providing us with the intelligence that permits them to come to that conclusion so that we can understand how they have drawn that conclusion and we could add that into our analysis. but we will wait for me to make a definitive statement on that issue until we have seen their intelligence in that regard. >> i am with npr. we have been told most of these attacks are due to personal disagreements with u.n. forces and maybe 10% arew taliban infiltration. the beif it's personal disputesd disagreements, how do you account for 10 of them in the past two weeks? >> good question, tom, a really

important question. we don't have enough data from those who have participated in the attacks to be able to make any kind of definitive conclusion. we think the reasons for these attacks are complex. some of them we do believe our about infiltration, impersonation, coercion, but some of them -- and we think that's about 25% or so -- but some of them are about disagreements, animosity which may have grown between the individual shooter and our forces in general or a particular grievance. so we look at each one separately. we are trying to understand what may have caused in each case but also in the aggregate why these attacks have occurred.

and why they have increased in number in the last several weeks. it may have something to do with ramadan. it's a very tough time for these forces. in particular this year and ramadan, as it is known in most of the moslem world, ramadan fell in the middle of the fighting season, during some of the harshest time for the climate in much of the region in which we fight. and so, the daily pressures that on some of these troops compounded by the sacrifice associated with fasting, the nature of our operational tempo, remembering that afghan troops have gone to the field and have stayed in the field and have been in combat now for years. we believe the combination of many of these are titular factors may have -- these are

part titular factors may have come together in the last weeks to generate a larger number that you have pointed to. >> let me quickly follow up. clearly you are seeing an increase in taliban infiltration in the most recent attacks? >> i did not say that. what i said is we believe there is taliban infiltration. the truth is, between those who have escaped and those that we have killed, the number is relatively small that have been captured and then can be interrogated. some of those have been infiltrators. many of those have been motivated to undertake these attacks because of personal grievance or radicalization or having become susceptible to a extremist ideology. but you are right that there is

a taliban influence and it takes several forms. it might be an impersonator, someone who gets into the uniform in order to get into close proximity to the forces. i might remind everyone that in many cases these impersonators' or these infiltrators have killed afghans as well as coalition forces. afghan casualty's are higher than ours in this regard. so, yes, there are

what we have learned is that the closer the relationship with them and the more we can foster a relationship, the more secure

be our. we were very careful during ramadan this year to undertake operations during those times that would not place a great physical strain on the troops. their troops as well as ours, given the partnership requirements. and so, we are going to what the outcome of ramadan. we are going to look on our operational tempo. the relationship of our security force assistance teams with the afghans and steve are any conclusions that we can learn. i don't think at this juncture that we need to pull back at this particular moment. as i said, i think we have learned that the closer the relationship, the more secure ultimately our troops will be.

what we have to do is to ensure that we together, the afghans and the coalition forces, undertake the kinds of protective measures which we have been undertaking for some time, but we are putting greater emphasis on now, we need to emphasize that probably more during ramadan. be more careful about our force protection, be more watchful of the emergence of a threat, and able to respond more quickly to that threat rather than to pull back away from our afghan partners. it is important to understand that while every one of these is a tragedy

they see it as a threat to us and they are gripping it as well. we will look at how this fighting season has evolved. we will look at how our operations unfolded during ramadan and we will make an evaluation after that. my initial belief is we should not pull back on our contact with afghans, who perhaps need to be more watched oh, of

afghans and coalition for the emergence of the threat and able to react quickly to that. i think that gets to the second part of your question. i don't believe it affects the strategy. >> i don't quite understand your point about the impact of ramadan. ramadan is cyclical and we have not seen the kind of spiky green and blue attacks has been seen over the past several weeks. we have heard from you, from your predecessors, from your colleagues throughout the past couple years. can you explain more what you think ramadan could have on the green on blue spiked? -- spike? >> again, i want to be careful

not to lay the blame for green and blue solely on ramadan. but i think that the holy month of ramadan demands great sacrifice of the muslims who observed and the idea that they will fast during the day places great strain. as you know, ramadan moves across the calendar each year. for this year it was in the middle of the fighting season. this year the ansf was a larger force than it has ever been before. we were conducting a very aggressive operations this calendar year. even with reduced off tempo when we tried to do it during the cool of the morning for the cool of the evening, close to the time when the troops may have access to water or food, it was killed during a very hot part of the season -- it was still during a very hot part of the

season. it is a potential reasons and not the reason for an upswing. we think ramadan was part of it, but not the principal reason. >> general allen, one of the concerns i have heard expressed about this is the sense that over the transition over the next 28 monthschanges such thate more u.s. and nato troops embedded in smaller numbers that are in closer proximity to the afghan forces. in terms of a force structure issue, is that a fair characterization and does that potentially increase the risk for these kind of attacks moving forward? >> well, andrew, thank you. that's an important question.

as you heard me say a few minutes ago, what we have learned is that the closer we are to the afghan formations, the closer the relationship, the deeper the french ships. dships.en there are brigade's organized together. they are trained together in their pre-deployment training cycle. when they arrive in theater they prepared to gather. when the time comes, their security force assistance teams deployed from a central location, tied into the brigade headquarters with communications, so there is constant coherence within that security force assistance brigade. originated back

in the u.s. and there were built together out of this brigade. the brigade provide command and control and other support as necessary. so there is a real coherence day the employment of security force assistance brigades, which are deploying into the region now. we have actually been at this in terms of security force assistance teams since earlier thisas time goes on, we will seo continue to deploy those kinds of brigades because they formed together, they will have control of the teams during the time they are here. they will be employed with out can units in areas where they will understand the afghan units

and the operational environment before they get there. they will be employed together. and in the debate will be employed together at the same time. this is an important approach, and as our numbers go down and as the general-purpose forces continue to diminish, he will ce our reliance on assistan brigades, which still control command control, a partner with afghans as well as advise afghans. we think that is an improvement in prior approaches over the years, and we think it is exactly the approach we need to take now as time goes on out through 13, as your question implies, and ultimately through 2014. as time goes on, the question is, at what level we both partner and advise, and eventually, as the numbers continue to come down, we will

see our advisory effort move upward in terms of the afghan hierarchy. some afghan battalion-level formations will be advised for a long period of time, because those will be in those areas which will require close attention, probably because of the enemy threats, the difficulty of the terrain, importance of the mission. we may see as our numbers come down, there will be larger numbers of the italian and even brigade-sized formations where our security force assistance teams will impart an advisory commission. it will be the physics of our force structure, but we will watch the entire battle spaced closely and will allocate the is forces based on where we see progress and where we see the need to maintain pressure on the enemy as the afghan forces

continue to improve. it is worth reminding the team in the pentagon and the course the public in general that we are still in the recruiting phase of the ansf. our goal is by october 1, and we are close now. then during 2013, we will still be training and four main, the quitting, and fielding elements of the ansf so they are not fully in the field, not fully cooked until the end of 2013. we have work to do, and we will structure our advisory efforts, condor hit -- contouer it as time goes on. >> good day. a larger question -- the so-

called surge of coalition forces -- is that drop-down now complete, and looking ahead over the next 28to 36 months, you made a reference to create a space so that a civilian, government, and non-governmental organizations have space to develop. what does afghanistan look like on january 1, 2015? >> on january 1, 2015, we will see the ansf will have achieved its full strength of 352,000. it will have been deployed across afghanistan, having completed the process of transition where it will be fully in the lead for the

security of the entire afghan population, and with -- it will be deployed in a manner and a way to continue to deal with the violence that we will find on the first of january, 2015. we will see that as the security has continued to improve across the country, it has given the central government of afghanistan and provincial governments below the national level, it has given the opportunity and provided opportunity for improved governance at the sub-provincial level, at the district level, which is key for the afghans, even today. in some areas where we have seen dramatic improvements in security, this is now the moment for the karzai administration to begin the process of concentrating on sub-

provincial and district governance. we will see on the first of january that as security has continued to improve, there will be increasing opportunities to improve the sub-national governance necessary, sometimes at the provincial level, to give the afghan people affirm opportunity to make a choice but to commit themselves to the government. on the first of january, we will see a new administration, and the election will have occurred in the spring of two dozen 14. that election -- 2014. that election will ensure it off as the first democratically elected government since the fall of the taliban, beyond the karzai administration. we will see a 200014 and mention -- we will see add new

administration in 2014, and the president will seen a period of time in the last 28 months, the last several years of the emergence of an afghan national security force, which is professional, willing to sacrifice mightily on behalf of the afghan people to achieve a level of security that is that new president and new administration and the ministries and the judiciary the opportunity to truly become a a factor in the lives of the afghan people. they will also see on the first of january that the international community is still with them, that the promises that were made by the heads of state of the isaf coalition in chicago, to continue to support and sustain the ansf, sustain

that with the right amount of resources and to support its with some form of international force in afghanistan to provide for the continued professionalize asian and development of the ansf. so the eight afghans will see the international community continuing to grip and improve and partner with the ansf. and then afghans will see the interest of the international community in the context of that which was promised in tokyo and in bonn. bonn talked about the decade of transformation and that they get at transformation will be one of the international community with a partnership with the administration elected in 2014 to move forward of sacrifices --

with the sacrifices that have been made beenisaf and the coalition, sacrifices being made every day by the ansf. they will move forward on the decade of transformation on the first of january into doesn't 15, which will be the beginning of a period of hope, a challenge in the embrace of the rule of law, the challenge in rooting out corruption. i believe the afghan people understand, and we will prove that the international community will not abandon afghanistan. the next 28 months we will continue to reinforce that as we transition from 2014 until to dozen 15. the afghan people have reason to be hopeful and they have reason to be proud of what has been accomplished by accomplishedansf and what will be accomplished as they abide the time, buy the

space for the improved governments, a development, and the embrace of the rule of law by this new administration. >> at the beginning of this it look like violence members were going down. now it looks like attack numbers are about the same as 2011. u.s. casualty numbers are the same for this fighting season. i'm curious what that tells us and whether that is a concern to you that we are continuing to see robust attacks as we drawdown. down.aw >> i would qualify your question just a little bit. as we measure the attacks, those numbers are down a bit. they may not be statistically

significant. we see them down 2%. it is less about the numbers this season than about the location. in so many of the places, the enemy-initiated attacks are first and foremost a reaction by the enemy to us. we have pushed hard on the insurgency to push them out of the population centers, much of which was cleared last year, and we have continued to push them. this is into an increasingly smaller area of districts where we have in many respects contained then. there is about 10% -- 10 of the 405 districts across afghanistan, constituting about 50% of the violence across the country. at about 20% -- i am careful about statistics because they

change, and george can provide you some of these numbers, we will get them to you -- 80% of the population experiences about 20% of the enemy-initiated activity. this year there was a member of an emmy-initiated attacks that statistically look similar to the numbers of last year. the difference this year is our operational tempo was very high, and much of those and any -- enemy-initiated attacks were a response to us. i think in this regard is has continued on track, the compact -- the campaign has continued in a manner we thought it would. our casualties are not the same as last year. george can get you the number, our casualties are about 25% lower than they were last year. the difference is the afghan

casualties are higher this year. they are higher because the afghan force is a larger force, they are higher because they are leading an partnering in far more of the operations than last year. they are higher because the afghans are in the attack, and so in that regard, there is a significant change from this year from last year. >> as you do battlefield circulation, what are the soldiers saying to you about these insider attacks, and the question would be, are these attacks occurred in the more out of the people out there on the edge of the -- on the tip of the spear? >> i spend a lot of time.

i try to get in at least twice a week. i spent a lot of time with the troops. the sigel reactions, while there is concern, one of the signal reactions is a very stalwart commitment to the mission. we are blessed in the u.s. and military -- in the u.s. military with small unit leaders, and this is a tough mission for all the variety of reasons, not the least of which is the operational environment. the noncommissioned officers, a junior officer levels, these trips are very well led, and where we have seen incidents of insider threat play out in terms of green-on-blue attacks, where

those young noncommissioned officers and officers very quickly covered down on their afghan partners, and where they lead their troops to the crisis of the -- led their trips through the crisis, it gave them context on the importance of the mission and close the gap between the afghans and the isaf forces. we have seen that yet recover, we have seen that unit continue its mission. several months ago during one of the crises, was a shooting at one of our kids, i got on a helicopter and we flew out to that can deduct our troops. i talked to the u.s. troops and the afghan troops, and the general did the same. it was an important moment. it was one of the earlier of the

attacks, and it set the standard and the condition that in the aftermath of one of these events, is going to be leadership that gets us through its, leadership that shows that troops the way that it is not about vengeance or retribution, it is about gripping the mission, understanding that while an afghan pulled the trigger, the vast majority of the afghans, they know every day, in fact are their brothers in this campaign and this mission. there have been other places where in the aftermath of one of these crises, one of the battalion commanders openly hugged his afghan the italian counterpart, and that solved the problem right on the spot. it reduced the potential difference that might have emerged between our two forces. you are right ask the question about more route, and when it

happens to a unit, increased -- if creates a moment of crisis, which can be overcome and is usually overcome by the application of the great mission that is the hallmark of our forces today, that magnificent nco'snci's and junior -- and junior officers. >> general, there is still covers every press controversy over your attempt to increase responsibility for units. what of the choices they could make is to go back to the warlord days when each one of those local police forces becomes an independent actor. what is your concern about that? >> well, as you know, we have

worked very hard on this program called the lunch stability and the afghan local police. -- called village stability and the afghan local police. but this helicopter go by. the alp -- and we have recently passed 16,000 cut 600 in december -- the alp is one of the most hated aspects of the ansf by the taliban for a variety of reasons. if the the damage -- if the village stability program works -- and it does, it is a mobilization of afghans at the ground level, the grass-roots level, to take the business of

their local security and their future into their own hands -- elders agreeing to raise a local police force out of the sons of that village or community. in most cases -- in all cases, when an alp stands up, it is advised by u.s. special operators and they provide for the training and professional station, the mentoring, and all of the alp units are tied into the ministry of interior and the local district chief of police. as time goes on and ask our numbers come down, we will see that the role of the police will be even more important in maintaining the connective the of the ministry of interior to the afghan local police. we are working very hard to

ensure the professional as a nation of the -- professional ization of the alp, and so often the literacy rates are low, there will be trouble affinities, loyalties, but the challenge for us and where we have been successful is insuring the ministry of interior from the minister all the way down through the district chief of police and his belief -- his police force are tied closely to the alp. if we continue on the route we are on, which seeks to strengthen the blind -- the bonds between the alp and the district, if we continue on that trajectory, on january 1, 2015, you will find the alp is in fact

a part of the force of the ministry of interior for local security and policing and not a potential reservoir soldiers for the local strongmen. your question is an important one and something about which we pay a lot of attention to. we are very cautious about this. there have been alp sites where our concerns about whether that site will be viable, coherent, have been such that we have either elected not to form it or very careful about this, and extraordinarily careful, in particular over the next 28 months that we build those strong relationships between the alp leaders, village elders with the district chief of police and ministry of

interior. that is the secret. that is the means by which we anticipate the alp being part of the long-term security solution, and not ultimately part of a security problem after the beginning of 2015. very important question. thank you. >> i am told i of a very quick question seeking clarification from bob burns. thank you for your time. >> thank you for your time also. when you were initially describing the insider attack issue, you said you believe roughly 25% could be attributed to taliban activity connection. the pentagon told us your folks have looked at this and come up with a number around 10 percent. was wondering if you could explain the difference. >> our view is it is about 25%.

this bill requires a lot of analysis, and so if it is just pure taliban infiltration, that is one number. if you add to that impersonation the potential that someone is pulling the trictrigr because taliban have coerced family members, that is a different number. it is less about the precision of 25 vs 10 than it is acknowledging the taliban are seeking ultimately to have some impact in the formation. i know you are aware of the taliban try to take credit for every one of these attacks, whether it is a personal grievance or successful infiltration, but the number 10 or 25 is a number we will

continue to hone to get a better feel for this so we really do have a sense of the size and magnitude of the enemy threat in the ranks of the afghanistan national security forces verses what could be issues associated with personal grievance, social difficulties and those kinds of things. that is really important for us to understand that. >> thank you very much for taking time out of your very busy day to join us. i would like to thank all of those in the briefing room here in washington. have a good day. >> thank you, and to all of you i wish you my very best. god bless you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> looking at pictures of the work going on on the republican

national convention floor in florida. the convention begins monday. the amount of electricity, cabling and fiber will most likely be the most ever used for an event in the state. 50,000 people are expected. organizers say the convention will begin in go on despite threats of a hurricane earlier in the week.

as work continues, a reminder of the republican national convention doubles and monday at 2:00 eastern and goes into the night. the rest of the week the convention starts at 7:30 eastern. live coverage here on c-span. also available on c-span radio and online at c-span.org. mitt romney will be in new mexico this afternoon promoting energy proposal cretan adding 3 million new jobs and energy dependence starting in 2020. this would open up more areas for drilling off the virginia and north carolina.

it also gives states more control of energy production. you can see the republican presidential candidates live starting at 12:00 it to buy eastern here on c-span. we would like your reaction after the speech. we will take your phone calls and tweets. tonight at 8:00 eastern, we will review paul ryan's comments on some of the major issues of the campaign, including the final budget, medicaid and social security. tonight's guests include the managing editor of "the hill" newspaper. that is tonight at 8:00 eastern. have become a major focal point in the presidential campaign. this morning "washington journal" discussed these issues. this is about 40 minutes. >> miss o'neil, thank you for

being with us. what have been your election effort so far? >> our goal is to really get the word about what is at stake for women in the 2012 elections. i am sure your viewers are very much aware of the enormous scandal going on around todd suggesting women who were sick -- subjected to legitimate rape. this is used as justification for making it impossible for women to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from a rape. these are issues that are very serious for women. my job and my organization's job

is to get that message out. it is not just about women's reproductive health care that is at stake. whitman's economic security is very much on the line. we know the middle class is struggling. it will get worse. frankly at the mitt romney/paul ryan budget were to be enacted, women who support over half of the middle-class families in this country, they are either the sole support for the central support of the family. this converts medicare to a voucher program. it sets up social security for benefits that congress could not slow down. very disproportionate impact on women. the cut to medicaid proposed in the budget would have a very disproportionate impact on women and would force thousands of nursing homes around the country to close.

then the proposed budget would slash an entire range of social programs that women rely on and social workers. there is an enormous amount at stake. this is an election in which i think the positions are very starkly different between the obama/bijan ticket and the mitt romney ticket. women really have a clear choice. >> the controversy, what has that done to your efforts, to your fund raising, to people interested in your aspects of the campaign? >> i think what has happened is women around the country are paying very close attention to -- it will not pay very close attention to what the

republicans say in their convention, and also reading carefully republican platform. this controversy has put a spotlight on these issues. we need the controversy to help us with fund-raising. we really need to get the word out, and that takes resources. i think the latest polls are showing an increasing gender gap between republicans and democrats. i think that will grow. i think it is a good thing for the national spotlight to be on these very important issue so they do not lie under the radar, so that when voters will really know what they are voting for when they go to the polls. we're working very hard. we are partnering with other women's organizations to get this word out. i think moderate women, independent women voters, they are the ones taking a close look at this. they will be voting -- my prediction is they will be

leaving the republican party in droves and voting for democrats in droves. i would like to say that my organization is a non-partisan organization. i think there's a real problem for the republican party to be so dominated by a very thin slice of the extreme faction in its party. the party leadership policies, the shutting down of family planning clinics, and cyber control, anti-abortion even for victims of rape or or for women who need to terminate their pregnancies for their health, those types of policies are not shared by the vast majority of voters in this country and are not shared by mainstream republican voters. i am hoping that this election cycle will demonstrate to republican party leadership that they need to come back more to the center and be more in tune with the mainstream of

what voters really want in terms of policy. host: here are two articles that are related to what terry o'neill has been talking about this morning -- female voters in campaign 2012 is the topic. terry o'neill is the president of the national organization for women. she's joining us from virginia beach, virginia. that does not look like a virginia beach behind you. guest: i am here visiting friends and family. host: the numbers are on the screen in case you would like to dial in,/political association. mike is on our independent line from minnesota.

caller: good morning. there was a study that i saw on one of the learning or discovery channel's that had to do with some lady, i believe she was a member of now that wanted to find out whether males dominate in the animal kingdom like in the human species. they strutted apes, and ducks, baboons, -- they studied. they also did a study in england where they are much more sexually inhibited -- uninhibited. host: what's your question? caller: the question has to do with women are going to find out that they control life itself. and legitimate rape has to do with pleasure vs unpleasure it.

host: we will move on to ron on our independent line. caller: i have been following this thing very closely. no one wants to really admit that race is at hand. from the time that gentleman called the president a liar, it seems that the democrats talk to their tails between their legs. the republicans have gotten away with every sort of thing imaginable. it is very disgraceful that we are in a time that we are with the rest of the world is going forward. america is stuck in racism and sexism. it is very shameful. thank you very much. i'm a first-time caller. host: thanks for calling. terry o'neill, you said that

there's a real gender gap when it comes to voting, men going more republican and women going more democratic. what is your view of that? is that a good thing or a negative thing? guest: i think it is an indication of how the republican party is going in an entirely the wrong direction. women are over 50% of the voting population of this country. you would think such a large proportion of the country would be a little more evenly distributed across the political spectrum. i think women are more or less evenly distributed across the political spectrum compared to the entire population. what is happening is that the republican party leadership is leading mainstream people

behind, men and women. that said, it is true that women tend to vote more progressive than men. some studies show that. but i think the enormous gender gap we are beginning to see is a reflection of how out of step with the mainstream of american society the republican leadership has become. that's a terrible pain. we have a two-party system in this country. we rely on both parties to provide options for voters, to provide choices for voters that actually would reflect the voters policy preferences. right now the republican party leadership is pushing policies that don't reflect what the majority of people in. this in. that does not mean they cannot get elected. -- right now the republican party leadership is pushing policy that don't reflect what

the majority of people want. people we don't respect or reflect the views of the majority of people in this country, those politicians can still get elected. one of the reasons you are seeing this enormous gender gap is precisely because of with a lot of money coming in, in 2010, many politicians getting elected that don't reflect what the american people want. now women and men are looking and saying what to you mean, you are opposed to birth control? the blunt amendment in the senate in the springtime and the companion bill in the house, which vice-presidential candidate paul ryan from supported, which would block women's access to birth control. that's way out of step. i think the gender gap is a symptom of something that is going very wrong with politics in this country.

host: the next call from terry o'neill comes from kara in massachusetts on our republican line. caller: i would like to make two quick comments. number one, this election concerns more than just the women's movement in this country. second, the remark about todd akin absolutely blows my mind. she knows and i know and the country knows he was referring to the thousands of men who are sitting in prisons today who were wrongfully convicted of rape by vindictive woman or spouses looking for a favorable results in court. that cannot be denied. it's wrong and that they are taking that out of context. host: any comments?

guest: that is -- i have frequently heard that, that somehow women who say they have been raped are lying because they're being vengeful against the men they have accused. two problems. first, the studies are very clear that rape is a seriously underreported crime in this country, that it has begun to be treated seriously only toward the end of the 20th century in this country. the violence against women act has brought us a long way toward preventing raped and stopping it from happening, but we have a long way to go. rape is a surge in this country. women do not claim they have been raped lightly because very often they feel the system then betrays them. many women report they feel raped a second time when they make the accusation and try to bring the perpetrators to justice.

so that's a problem. but i do want to say something on what the caller said about individuals being wrongly convicted. the good news is that we do have dna testing that and much more accurately identify a rapist. the dna process has resulted in freeing a number of individuals who were wrongly convicted of a number of crimes. so that needs to go forward. rape kids around the country are languishing for lack of resources to process them. -- rape kits around the country. we need to get serious about processing those and putting resources into them to make sure they are processed. because of the violence against women act and because of dna testing and appropriateness forensic rape examinations, we have learned that although one- quarter of women will be raped in her lifetime, it's not all

the case that one-quarter of men are perpetrators. rape is very much a serial crime. it's a small minority of men committing a large number of rapes. dna testing can help us find them and put them in prison where they belong. host: on july 11, 2012, now endorsed president obama and vice-president biden for reelection. . here's . -- here is the announcement. a tweet -- guest: before the republican party took the equal in rights amendment off it's plank, now use to support republican candidates. somebody sent me a republican who is in favor of women's

rights, who supports equal marriage for same-sex couples, who understands women's needs for the whole range of reproductive health care, who understand women's needs for economic security, who understands women still today don't have equal pay for equal work, and is willing to take a leadership role in changing that fact. i believe at the state level and at the local level there still are some republican policy makers that now chapters can endorse. we are nonpartisan and we are for women. president obama and vice- president biden are hard choice for this year's election because they have shown themselves to be supportive of women's rights. they are putting us on the right path toward equality.

so that is what we look at. host: last week's sabrina schaeffer of the independent women's forum was our guest. she talked about paul ryan. [video clip] >> paul ryan is seen as a true fiscal conservative. when he was elected by governor romney it was a nod to conservative voters who want to see him standing up for free market policy prescriptions. when he selected paul ryan, that was extremely helpful to him among his base. but it was new blood for the left to say look how bad he is, he's going to be one of those conservatives who hates women. guest: paul ryan's policies cannot be worse for women. i don't know how he personally feels about women, but his policies are devastating. let's look at what he's most proud of and what he really

wants to highlight as his policy prescriptive. that is the right and budget, which is really now the romney- ryan budget. that budget devastates women. women actually cluster in a very small number of job classifications. only in 25 out of over 50 hundred job classifications recognized by the bureau of labor statistics. women have 50% or more of the jobs in those. women are two thirds of minimum-wage workers. wouldyan's policies devastate low-income workers by taking away things like food stamps and headstart and bell grants and after-school programs. these are all programs women disproportionately rely on. a woman who currently is benefiting from an after-school program in her community, sheik innkeeper job because she knows

if battered child or children have a safe place to go after school. but if that's good program is shut down, which under paul ryan's plan it would be, she's going to lose her job. -- a woman who currently is benefiting from an after-school program in her community, she can keep her job because she knows her children are in a safe place after school. i don't know if paul ryan hates women, but i know the policies are fiercely anti woman and that's a fact. host: an independent in fairview, oklahoma, you are on. caller: good morning, c-span, and thank you, terry for the work you do. i've been a big fan of c-span3 retired. that's a fact. i watched the house and the

bills they're passing. why we got into this mess is the republicans are all about saying one thing and doing another, which is evidenced by the bill pass. go to the government web sites and see what they've done this year. you'll be amazed at three- quarters of the bills they passed concern abortion, controlling women's right to choose., choose it is just ridiculous. i don't know if the public is being fooled by what they say on television, but caring organizations like hers need to let people know what's going on so we can stop being fooled by these pretenders who are not what they say are. host: terry o'neill. guest: thank you very much. i appreciate those comments. i have heard from other corners not within the women's movement expressing concern that in the media there is an effort to be

bipartisan as opposed to nonpartisan. i think it's really important for everyone to reflect on the difference between being bipartisan, where you say the republicans have one view of it and the democrats have another and they are equal and we are going to present these two people views. that's my view of bipartisanship. on partisanship is telling the truth. tell the truth about a particular policy even if it turns out that the truth about that policy makes the person who was pushing that policy look really bad. if it's a bad policy, it needs to be identified as a categorically that policy. to say that paul ryan is a fiscal conservative really does not capture paul ryan's policy agenda. he is a radical transferfer of wealth.

the romney-ryan budget has been described by an economist, a well-known economist, as being the single largest wealth transfer from middle income and low-income families to the very wealthiest in this country that our country has ever seen. the romney-ryan budget, by the way, it is not fiscally conservative in the sense that it does not reduce the federal budget deficit. it simply takes money from one sector of the economy and ships it to another sector. all the savings from cutting medicare -- i'm sorry, converting medicare to a voucher program, cutting medicare, cutting social security benefits, cutting all these social programs, all the savings from that goes to increased military spending and enhanced tax breaks for millionaires and corporations. there is virtually no deficit reduction.

if you want to be non-partisan, you really have to be reporting that the romney-ryan budget -- we go live now to hobs, new mexico. mitt romney has started his afternoon proposal on energy. >> with us right here in new mexico, oil is a big source of additional supply. and another 2 million barrels per day. the last up here yet this is anwar. that will add additional oil in this country. natural gas liquids. natural gas is booming as a source of energy. as you produce natural gas, you get liquids. those can be refined and used to create a gasoline for automotive purposes as well. that is 2 million barrels per day. then we go to biofuels. whether ethanol or by a diesel will produce 1 million barrels per day of additional capacity. then we come to canada.

canada has oil sands. we will take advantage and build the keystone pipeline and work with canada to make sure we take a bit of their great energy sources. [applause] the last bar i have is mexico. i am not counting any increase there. they have been declining slightly, but i think by virtue of a new president and conviction on the part of both parties in the most recent elections to encourage closer relationships with us we will find ourselves being able to work with mexico to share our technology and know-how to help them become more productive and add to the energy produced in north by 2020, we are able to produce well and will need to buy any oil from the middle east, venezuela or anyone else if we don't want to. [applause] you might wonder how in the world i'm going to do all of

those things because those opportunities have existed for a long time, we just haven't taken advantage of them. so there are some things i'm going to do differently that makes it possible for us to be able to achieve those improvements in production from all of those sources i described. number one, on federal lands, the permitting process to actually drill and get oil or gas is extraordinarily slow. interestingly, on state lands and private lands, state regulators have streamlined their permitting process, there a valuation, their environmental process and say process. they have found a way because states compete with each other and have found a way to do things more efficiently. in north dakota, it takes 10 days to get a permit for a new well. in colorado, it takes 27 days to get on state land a permit. but do you know how long it takes federal government regulators to get a permit on

federal land? an average 307 days. here's what i'm going to do -- i am going to have the states take responsibility for the permitting process on federal lands. [applause] of course the process is going to have to be reviewed and approved by the federal government and will be overseen and monitored, but will have state regulators not just regulate oil production and gas production on state lands and private lands but also on federal lands, and that will improve the creation of new oil wells and gas wells and get more production to the people who need it. i also want to note another way we are going to get more production and that is with regard to our offshore resources. right now, the federal government has been holding off offshore development. what we're going to have to do is speed that up, so i'm putting together a five-year leasing plan to lease offshore sources and we will make as part of

that, carolina, virginia and the gulf will have companies that do the drilling responsible for getting this target and if not, we'll have corrective measures. but we're finally going to make sure we implement state of the art safety procedures for offshore drilling and a sure as we put in place these regulations and procedures their design for safety, not designed to stop drilling for energy resources, using the law to stop drilling for energy is not in the best interest of our people. [applause] #3, going to establish an energy partnership with canada and mexico. we're going to work collectively have a fast-track process to make sure infrastructure projects are approved. particularly, we're going to get the keystone pipeline in -- keystone pipeline approved. number four, it's time we get an accurate inventory about how much energy we have. the president keeps talking

about the idea that we only have 2% of the world's oil reserves. that's a dramatic understatement of the energy resources of this country. it's probably seven times that amount or more. i'm going to authorize a seismic study of our onshore and offshore resources to find out what we have had where we have an going to require those that have the service -- have these surveys to collect them and share them with one another and take advantage of an understanding of what our resources are so we can plan accordingly. i am also going to do something that has been around for a long time -- i'm going to change to regulatory and permitting process to make a more transparent and make sure as we put in place regulations, they are designed to actually help get production where is needed and not using regulation to stop the production of energy. if sometimes i have the impression that the whole regulatory attitude of the administration is trying to stop oil and gas and coal.

they don't want those sources. they want to get those things so expensive than so rare that wind and solar become highly cost- effective and efficient. i like wind and solar like the next person, but i don't want a lot to be used to be stopped -- to stop the production of oil, gas, and coal and i'm going to get to lot to be transparent time lines, statutes of limitations and stop using a legal suits to stop the production of energy in this country. number six, i want to promote energy innovation. what do i mean by that? we have watched the president followed different paths. he has taken federal dollars, your money, to invest in companies, smaller companies, when companies, about $90 billion in so-called green jobs. $90 billion has gone to this. the government of the united states is not a very good venture capitalist. he says he's picking winners and losers.

mostly he has been picking losers. there is a long list of these businesses he is investing in. i don't want government investing in companies, particularly companies of his campaign contributors. i want instead to have our government investing in basic science and research, finding new sources of energy, also finding ways to be more efficient in our use of energy. i happen to believe that dotted line i have there where it says american energy uses -- usage will stay about the same. i say we can bring that down three -- we can bring that down. we may even be an exporter of energy at some point when you consider all our resources. but this is where we should be devoting our federal dollars, not on trying to put money into businesses which often fail. instead, putting money into technology, science and research. we do that and you will see new opportunities to get america and

north america energy independent. what are the benefits of all this? if we actually get there, and i am planning on getting there. if i get elected, we're going to get there. [applause] let me tell you what the benefits are. 3 million jobs. 3 million jobs come from doing this. 3 million jobs. that is 1 million in manufacturing. that's a lot of energy-related jobs. 3 million jobs come back to this country by taking advantage of something we have underneath their feet. that is oil, gas, and coal. we're going to make it happen and create those jobs. it adds $500 billion to the size of our economy. "that is more good wages and the opportunity for more americans to have a bright and prosperous future. it also means potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of tax revenues going into

states and federal government which can make sure we have a military second to none and schools that lead the world and care for our seniors, better roads and bridges. [applause] accomplishing what i described right there means lower energy prices for american families. by the way, for american businesses, so that as businesses are thinking about or to build a factory and a look at the cost of production of a particular product, they see in north america, we have ample energy and it is low cost. that will bring businesses back here. he will see more manufacturing come back to the united states as a result of doing what is so clearly in our best interest. [applause] by the way, we have all noticed the trade deficit. that's how much more we buy from other people than they buy from us. doing what we describe will reduce that trade deficit by

80%. think of the impact of that. [applause] let me mention something else -- we have to have a national security strategy which takes into account the fact america will be stronger if we have all the energy we need to power our economy and our military. this is not just a matter of economy and jobs and rising incomes and a growing economy and more tax revenues. it is also more security. it means we don't have to rely on people who sometimes don't like us very much. america will be able to stand on its own. the can stand with our friends from mexico and canada and make sure we have all of the energy we need to make sure our military never has to borrow from some across the ocean that might not be our best friend. [applause] i happen to believe if you do what i described, and i'm planning on doing it when i get

elected, if we do that, and those other four things i described which are fixing our schools and training programs and making sure we improved trade and make trade work for america and finally attack it -- tackle our deficit and champion small business, you do those things and this economy is going to come roaring back. [applause] the other day, the vice president was talking about how things are getting some much better for the middle class in america. i wish you'd go out and talked to some people and the people across this land. it's not getting better for the 23 million people out of work or stop looking for work it's not getting better for people who are seeing their incomes go down and their costs go up. it's not getting better for people getting out of college and can't find work. what i have described here will make things better for the

middle-class america. people all over this country will be convinced again it's great to be middle-class america. moms and dads will no kids coming out of school will be able to get a good job. this is critical for our generation, the coming generation, and for the world. i say for the world because people around the world look to america. they need a strong america. they know a strong america is essential to peace on the planet. a strong america keeps the world's worst actors from doing the world's worst things. i had the privilege a few weeks ago of a meeting was:. i came into his office -- of meeting was: a. he said through an interpreter that you are probably tired. you sit down and listen, so i did. he began to speak for about 15 minutes uninterrupted and his message was straightforward. he repeated it again and again

-- where is american leadership? we need america's leadership. america is the only superpower on the planet. we need america to be strong. [applause] getting north american energy independence is key to american leadership. so is fixing our schools and balancing our budget, making trade work for us and understanding the power of small business, individual initiative, hard work. this is what america is all about. i have been inspired as i've gone across the campaign trail for the last months and i have seen americans who have taken the initiative to try to build enterprises for themselves and improve the lives of their families. i am inspired by the power of individuals, of a person and a family changing the life of other people in the family. my sister has eight children. she is so enthusiastic, positive

and energetic. she has raised terrific kids. seven of them are married. her eighth is a down syndrome away. he is 43. she's 75 and her husband passed away a few years ago. jeffrey was at home with her and she devotes her life for caring for him and her kids and grandchildren. the impact of one person, of a strong personality of love and affection is enormous in a family. enormous also in an economy. i have gone across the a cop -- i have gone across the country and that entrepreneurs will time and i'm impressed by their capacity to lift others through their ideas. i met a woman who had her own business. i said how did you get your company started? she said her husband got his company starting and took a class in upholstering. she started a company of her own and hired him as her first employee. she went on to hire 40 more

people as upholsterers. now she has a successful a bolstering country. i met another woman in north carolina just a few days ago. she is in the furniture business. hard to compete with china in the furniture business and other foreign sources but she found a way to do it. the jobs and people she works for. she decided she would focus her furniture in one small segment -- she makes a furnitures for -- she makes furniture for waiting rooms and hospitals. by making a superb quality product at a good price, she has been unable to maintain our business and the jobs of some 27 people who work with her. i met another guy who by virtue of his insight and imagination and hard work and smarts was able to change the lives of a lot of other people. he is in southern illinois and graduated second in his high

school class. second from the bottom. [laughter] he decided college was not in his future and talk to his dad about a loan and his dad and loaned him the money to the business started. they split. he was going to be in the food business and he went on to buy a hamburger grill and hot dog roller, you know they put the hot dogs on and by the time he costed it all out, he found out it was more expensive than he had money for. but the only thing he could do was make sandwiches. so he set up tables in the garage and then delivers them to people at business. now his business is known as a jimmy johnson. he has 1500 restaurants and employs 60,000 people. one person making a difference. thing, america, where individual and

initiatives, individual know how, hard work, people pursuing their own course, their own dreams have built america. freedom has built america. when the founders crafted the founding documents of america, they said our rights came from god. they did not say they came from government. they came from god. and among the more life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [applause] uniquewhat makes us a and exceptional nation. individuals, moms, dads, kids at school, entrepreneurs, even political leaders who have an issue to come in sight, passion are willing to take risk and make a difference. it's what makes america what we are. i think the president thinks it's somehow government that makes us what we are. that is not the answer. the answer is to rely on individuals and their dreams and passions. i'm going to keep america strong by returning america to the freedoms we have all known,

bringing to each individual the capacity to achieve, to pursue their dreams. i love america. i love the principles upon which america was founded. i know if we do the things i have described, america is going to come roaring back. our families needed, market needs it, the world needs it. we're going to keep america the shining city on the hill and together, we're going to get to mexico to help me become the next president. thank you very much. great to be with you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] "washington journa[captions copl cable satellite corp. 2012]

♪ ♪ ♪is ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪nd ♪ aheada list of platitue of >> live coverage of mitt

romney. we apologize for not getting the beginning of his remarks. we will show it leader in its entirety. mr. romney campaign in these last few days before the republican convention, reliving his plans for energy cullman and job growth. -- energy independence and job growth.

. 're getting your thoughts the numbers are on the screen. we are also taking your tweets. we are getting into some of those. our first call is from tennessee, arizona. >> i thought the speech was incredible. my heart is pumping. every time i watch the president, all he does is make fun of mitt romney. he just makes fun of them. he doesn't want to talk about his economics. he has a five trillion dollars in less than four years. $five trillion dollars. he is going to cut in half. where are the jobs, mr. president? thes a three letter word --

media has not listened to romney at all about what his plans are, all they do is go after him and that thing that's going on in missouri -- we are here in arizona and that means nothing to us. that's an nbc. -- that is msnbc. this is manufactured crap by the democrats. show us where you have cut staff. put more people on welfare. keep it up, mr. president. >> thank you for your call. >> i would like to answer a little bit of what the lady just said. isthing that's brought up cancelled by the republican congressman. there is no way they would let

any kinds of jobs go through. he did not tell us how he was going to improve medicare. he did not tell us how he is going to clean up the air and water. he did not tell us how much money -- the millions of dollars he was giving tax breaks to millionaires said that in order to balance the budget he is going to have to tax the middle class. >> this was meant to be a speech on energy policy. >> improve air and water goes along with energy policy. >> thank you for your call. on the independence line, lexington, ky. >> congress are the ones to pass bills. the president only signs into law. congress is the one who needs to

worry about jobs. it needs to get past both parties. the other thing i was looking at on the speech, he says we're going to start -- i did not hear nothing about national gas which t. boone pickens has been preaching that the longest. right now, we have 75% of our oil in the united states being used and what ever oil we drill goes into the world market, not the united states. drilling on private lands -- could you imagine a leak going into yellowstone not like it did into the gulf and what kind of problems we would have if they couldn't stop that leak on that beautiful land? people have to understand it's ok to say we're going to drill in those areas and am ok with drilling in some parts, but if we get oil leaks like we did in the gulf and no one can stop it, then we will be -- how are you

going to stop it? he's not going to go down there and stop himself. he needs to get more precise with what he's talking about. put nothing on the president. i think congress has to act to pass bills to help the economy. >> let's move on to houston, texas, on the republicans line as we continue watching mitt romney at watson's a truck stop in hobbs, a mexico. >> i just finished watching the speech and it's a very telling of his intentions. i fully support him and have for several years. i certainly hope is going to be more successful this year. we have got to change this country. i hope this message goes to mitt romney -- he needs to watch the new movie about obama's america 2016 because that gets to the

root of obama's agenda and his intention on what to do with america. >> on to iowa and the independence line. >> i've gotten to the point where i am so sick and tired of both parties. that is the reason i decided to become an independent. the republicans have been in the way, but at the same time i feel like the president hasn't been paying much attention to what a lot of the people want. i feel like instead of fighting each other, it's almost like they hate each other. for me, i'm getting to the point where i'm wondering if i'm going to vote at all. and that's my right, but i feel like home i going to vote for? i don't like either. >> a quick reminder that our convention coverage begins at 2:00 eastern. the remaining days of the convention will start when the gavel comes down at 7:00.

every speech live all week long. your tweets, and e-mail's, here on c-span. >> i just got done in listening to the future president's speech in new mexico. it was not only inspirational but very presidential as well. i haven't heard someone talk that well for many elections. i hope everybody will want to vote for a change that is positive. if we can slow down the epa and this government malarkey going on in the oil industry's by putting in a few more refineries and drilling, this country is going to go along ways and not be supported from oil overseas.

good luck, i'm all for you. >> our next call is bob in new york city. >> i would just like to say i don't understand how both myself and republicans and democrats can at least agree on making the least efficient power plants, about 5%, rebuild those and agree on more efficient refineries. the rev. al sharpton, many people who come into politics from religion, i don't think it's right that bishop mitt romney should be denied that. >> 12 kathleen on the democrat'' line from chicago. >> -- onto kathleen on the democrats' line from chicago. democrats' line from chicago. >>