the house. i remember many frustrations where house leadership could not find out. the last moment with the senate might or might not do on a matter. and the senate parliamentarians were not free to give any information out. it was very frustrating. necessarilyk they has to be away. but how the leadership now says in the next two months here is our emphasis on openness, conciliation, maybe the proof will be in the lame duck session. i do not see it before the lame duck session. >> there is a new rule in this congress barring resolutions.

it said it shall be returned to the representative, which means to me that it never happened. to what extent can the congress bar introduction of a resolution based on the subject matter? >> it can. that rule has been there since 1995. the republicans came in and put it in place every little winning team or town or whatever. the problem with the rule that the road is that there are loopholes in it. number one, you could enter and seeing new commemoratives. you don't get unanimous consent on commemoratives any more the way you used to. it took a lot of time. but rather than put a specific date, if members required a specific date or time for

honoring the occasion or the person, rather than put it in the body of the resolution, they put it in the preamble. so it is just a sense. but then they would say there should be -- that was the way. as far as return, there are many times when we saw a bill that was clearly a commemorative over the years and we would give it back to the member. and he would have to change it so that the emphasis was put into the preamble or some other way it was done. and the public would know that. unless the member issued a press release. the rules say that shall not introduced and the house shall not accept. >> [indiscernible]

and the parliamentarians will, -- role, their relationship of the parliamentarians to the presiding officer or to the leadership. >> a very good question. the answer is no yes. not necessarily in a negative way. the role of the parliamentarian, as i grew through it over many years, was much more spontaneous and unpredictable. many and all germane amendments, second-degree amendment, emotion or whatever could spring up without notice. now rules eliminate all of those uncertainties. so the ability of the parliamentarian, the requirement that the parliamentarian give time is much diminished. the parliamentarians are always advising anyone going to the

rules committee on whether their amendments would be germane or subject to a point of order. there is more of that front end loading decision making. but to the electronic ways of communication have changed the dynamic of relationships between members, staff, and, for example, the parliamentarian's office. i sent over this amendment. is it germane? well, i don't think so. here is another person. how does this look? that is probably my biggest challenge. i worked for 30 years in my own time with democratic speakers. when newt gingrich became speaker, there was no question whether he would clean house of everybody. i had just been named three months earlier by speaker foley, in and was defeated. there was some pressure to clear out all of us, which,

almost by definition, would have been unfortunate for the house. anyone he would have chosen would have been partisan. in my last day, i will defend and i think both sides now feel that the parliamentarians have not been partisan. they have not necessarily been given the best advice, but that has resulted in another trend, which is the proliferation -- until this year, the appeals of the ruling to the chair, where members don't always distinguish between rules and rulings. the rules in the rules committee can be very unfair. and someone says that i should have been able to offer this amendment and they were ruled out of order -- this technique would appeal rulings of the chair. then both sides would politicize votes on those appeals as votes on the substance of the issue, of the

amendment. within minutes, there are spin operations that would say that this is how members felt about an issue, which was clearly not germane on the substance of the issue, not on the correctness of the chair's ruling. so that trend was unheard of for the most part when i was there. it is debated again. democrats are not using it as much. but to politicize those boats as votes on the merits and have it immediately message into vulnerable district -- there is a great article about this a few years ago -- i think is wrong. it is another example of how the respect in some minds for a while of the process had been diminished because of frustrations on the part of both minorities not being allowed to do what they would otherwise be allowed to do. then you have the relationships between the speaker and the parliamentarian. they have been good, not

perhaps as intimate as when nancy pelosi was speaker. my successor enjoyed a professional relationship with her. and john boehner -- they see the house. they don't see the dynamism, the spontaneity, the friendships that i saw during my formative years. and perhaps they don't develop the affection for the house. it is much harder to do these days. that sentiment was very sustaining for me over many years. whether it is new folks coming along who can look beyond that and say we are here to do a job for the house of representatives regardless of the politics, that is a real challenge.

>> do you think that the tea party willing to use more openness and transparency in the congress? >> that is hard to predict. do they want openness? or do they just want their agenda? i don't know. if the debt limit issue is any indication, i am not saying that that was driven purely by the tea party, but i don't know the answer to your question. let me just say that that is not a parliamentarian inquiry. [laughter] >> i read many sources that feel that the french ships have broken down in congress because congressman fly-home-on the

weekend and there are not these relationships such as reagan had with tip o'neill and people don't stay in town and have dinner parties with one another and cocktail parties that they had previously. >> absolutely. i injected the demise of second residences as an indication of that. and when they are in town, the members are fundraisers every tuesday and wednesday night. even thursday. that clearly does not encourage members and families to socialize after hours, as it did. there is no argument with your observation. it is very unfortunate. maybe there still are at the committee level, maybe in the gymnasium, bipartisan french ships can be allowed to cultivate.

from time to time, when there is a bipartisan bill that passes the house it seems to me that these members go overboard to talk about how does a great bipartisan effort. it might be something on peanuts. [laughter] they are sensitive to it. what they can do about it is another question. >> how expensive are the differences among the parliamentary systems -- extensive are the differences among parliamentary systems around the world? are they homogeneous, or very? >> ours is rather unique. it is not a parliamentary system, maybe they would say it is headed in that direction, where the government is in the parliament, as is the case in most parliaments in the world, where the executive branch is in the legislative branch. without a separation of powers, house, senate, and a limitation

of power, is unique. when visitors come -- there are some systems that follow the u.s. model. when i talk to people, i normally suggest that they not just do it as a knee-jerk reaction, but i have never done a real survey worldwide on parliamentary systems. if you use the british as the mother of parliaments, which they like to do, and it is amazing how our system deviates from theirs, they have a common-law system, many other parliaments throughout the world -- they follow the parliamentary system. in kenya, for example, i went there right before those riots. the main issue there, and you

may recall, was the election in 2008. it was disputed. the current president probably lost, and it was really horrible. they treated the office of the prime minister in addition to the president. his opponent still serves in that capacity. you have opposing parties, one as president, one as prime minister. a number of countries have as to positions, they are normally more influential. they created 80 departments, 40 cabinet officers for each of the two sides. that was there one way of compromising. that was their immediate response. there are basic reforms and how they can be implemented throughout the world -- those are beyond my expertise. it was always fun during my time

to meet people who had those questions. i would say, i'll be happy to answer questions, but i want to be able to ask as many as an answer. being able to step back after my retirement and do some comparison, especially to the british system, it gives me some insight. it is ultimately a political decision in each country. if you really want to see how screwed up the eu is, read the segment in the book. as far as the european parliament is concerned. >> we're on the other side of the capitol, but i would be interested in your thoughts on filibuster reform in the senate. one of your former counterparts is releasing a book this summer called "defending the filibuster." >> i would, i start off talking

about the nixon anecdote, to me there is the legitimate constitutional argument that you can do it by majority vote, but to use the nuclear option to accommodate it would not work. both parties now have enough skeptics in the senate to reject that notion that it would require the chair, an appeal from the ruling of the chair to the fact that a majority vote is not allowable and that a instant majority of the senate's overruling the chair -- the senate, it has a tradition that any ruling of the chair that his appeal and overruled then becomes a firm precedent until later changed. if, just for starters, with a majority of senators seen them

potentially in the minority, would they want to preserve, not knowing who the president will be, that seems like it would be a constant -- robert byrd was a champion of this. he said senator should have before range of options at every stage. then comes reconciliation, which he helped write, then he had to have second thoughts and put in the byrd rule, which narrows with you can do by majority vote in reconciliation. i would like to see the senate become more majoritarian. if only to force senators and it would certainly be more transparent. i think they have reached an accommodation -- first it was the gang of 14. now it is on confirmation that

there will be no nuclear option. now that recess appointments are not going to be made, at least in the remainder of this term, as far as, clearly, the impact of the 3/5 requirement is profound. the senate has taken measures to short circuit that by combining what would otherwise be a serious 3/5 vote -- they will get unanimous consent to make a final vote, which would normally only be -- that takes unanimous consent. they do not have a rules committee that can do that. yes, of all the reforms, that is what they targeted most heavily in their book. i do not dispute that.

>> at time is up. thank you. >> thank you all for coming. >> later today, remarks from attorney general eric holder at and lesbian conference. then at 8:00 eastern, remarks from paul ryan. >> am not in the habit of breaking promises to my country,

and neither is governor palin. when we tell you we will change washington and stop leaving our country's problems for some luckier generation to fix, you can count on it. and we -- [applause] then we got a record of doing just that. and the strength, experience, judgment, and backbone to keep our world to you. >> you have stood up and said enough to the politics of the past. you understand that in this election the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expected different result. you have shown what history teaches us, that in defining moments like this the change we need does not come from washington, change comes to washington. [applause]

>> c-span has aired every minute from every party convention since 1984. live coverage of the republican and democratic conventions live on c-span, and streamed online starting next monday with the republican convention. also, senator john mccain and jeb bush. democratic speakers include julian castro, michelle obama, and bill clinton. >> mitt romney held a campaign rally in units to get today, to outline his energy plan. it expands offshore drilling. mr. romney says his plan would create 3 million jobs.

♪ [indiscernible] >> thank you. it is great to listen to heather wilson. she has got to be the next u.s. senator of new mexico. thank you to lieutenant governor sanchez. a great job that team is doing here in town. mayor, a cure for welcoming me, and also at this watson truck and supplied. i do think the smith family build this business, and the minutem many men and women. i think that free people of america built the free enterprise to build our economy.

as you know the president said something about that that was revealing. he was in virginia, and wishes he could take the words back, but they were revealing of what he believes. he said if you have a business, you did not build it, someone else did that. he went on to say you are taking me out of context. the context is worse than the quotation. he says if you are successful and might be because you are more hard -- you working hard. we value individuals who apply themselves to increase their knowledge and their capacity to think and learned, and we welcome people in this country who work hard and understand those people who are smart and work hard, they increase understanding we have a power

our economy works -- >> there we go. >> i need someone out here to hold on to it that like they once held on to the stage for me. we welcome people who are smart and work hard because they are people of achievement. whether a person to works -- who works hard to get a promotion or the kid who makes the honor roll, she works hard, studies hard, and we recognize to get to school she had to get on a school bus, but when she makes the honor roll, we grabbed her and not the school bus driver. the president's lack of understanding of how individual initiative and hard work and education and risk taking led him to put in place a series of

policies that have not worked. the evidence is around the country. you have 23 million people out of work or have stopped looking for work. you have half the kids coming out of college cannot find a job consistent with their degree. one out of six americans has fallen at the poverty. almost everything the president has done has made it harder for the economy to recover, and middle income families are having hard times. another report came out yesterday showing middle income families are having a harder time maintaining their standard of living. this is inexplicable and in a nation that is so prosperous as our own to see a nation with so many middle income families having a tough times. the median income has dropped in the last 3 1/2 years by $4,000.

people are being squeezed. this is the best the obama team can do, but we can do better, and we will. i have gone across the country over the last months describing a plan that will get this country going again and create good jobs and rising incomes. this five points i will mention briefly, but i will talk about one in some debt. number one is taking advantage of our energy resources. that is number one. number 2, we have to make sure our schools are world class. this nation in vented education. we have to fix our schools. number three, we have to have more trade. we need to open up trade with

latin america and crack down on cheaters like china. number four, we will not get businesses to risk starting enterprises if they think america will become greece. we will have to get serious about cutting spending, encouraging gross, and balancing our budget in this country. number five, we have to champion small business, help small business, keep their taxes competitive, get regulators to see that their business is to encourage business and not crushed it. we need to repeal "obamacare." i want to go deeper for a moment

as i talk about the number one objective. anergy. if i am the president of the united states in a few months, i will set a national goal of america and north american energy by 2020, we are able to produce well and will need to buy any oil from the middle east, -- on the left-hand side, you see a bar that represents how much our total demand is in the united states. right now we're making 15

million barrels a day. the rest we import. we are producing about 2/3 of what we use. as we go across the line, there are various sources of that additional energy. i have a bar representing conventional sources, and there is a great sliced that suggests conventional sources, meaning fields we already have, technologies, will see a reduction in production over the next 10 years. we will have to make up for that and add to it. offshore drilling -- we will add 2 million barrels a day in offshore drilling. oil, fracking. this is an important source of additional supply.

alaska, that will add additional production. natural gas liquids. natural gas is booming as a source of energy. as you produced natural gas, you get liquids that can create dazzling for automotive purposes. that is another 2 million barrels a day. then become to biofuels. whether ethanol or biodiesel, will produce 1 million barrels a day of an additional capacity. then we come to canada, which has oil sands. we will work kennedy to make sure that they have advantage of their great energy sources. the last bar i have is mexico, and i am not counting an increase in mexico. they have been declining. by virtue of a new president and conviction to encourage closer relationships with us, we will

find ourselves being able to work with mexico to share technology to help them become more productive and add to the energy produced in north america. the net of all of this is by 2020, we are able to produce oil and we will not need to buy any oil from the middle east venezuela or anyone else if we don't want to. 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. 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.

number 3, we're 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 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 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 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 usage will stay

about the same. i say 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 tackle our deficit and champion small business, you do those things and this economy is going to come roaring back.

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 with lech walesa. 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. 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. -- boy. 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 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 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. 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. it's an amazing 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. that's what makes us a unique 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. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪

loosensy's plan environmental regulations. you can read his energy plan on

our website, c-span.org. tonight, vice presidential candidate paul bryant on medicare and the ryan but. the guests include the managing r of "the hill." >> i am not in habit of breaking promises to my country, and neither is governor palin. but we tell you we will change washington and stopped leaving our country because problems for some mckyer generation to fix, you can count on it. we have a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to

you. >> you have stood up and said enough to the politics of the past. you understand in this election the greatest risk is to try the same old politics with the same players and expect a different result. you have shown what history teaches us, that in defining moments like this one, the change we need this not come from washington, but to washington. >> c-span has aired every minute from every party convention since 1984. our countdown to the conventions continues, with convention coverage with their republican national convention. all started next monday with the gop convention, with chris christie and the keynote address, also senator john mccain and jeb bush.

>> eric holder his talking about civil rights issues at the national gay and lesbian conference this evening. you can see it this evening at 7:30 eastern on c-span. now a discussion on alternative education. we will hear remarks from an education professor from western michigan university. this is hosted by that national education policy center, this is one hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning.

i am a reporter with the voice of russia radio in washington, and welcome to this morning's newsmaker hearing at the national press club. the topic of this morning's panel discussion, we have dr. kevin will honor of the university of colorado and the director of the national education policy center. we have dr. miron of western michigan university, alex medler, mary filardo, executive director of the district of columbia's 21st century school fund, and adam schaeffer from the cato institute.

to lay down a bit of the ground rules about we will have statements from the panelists and the remainder of the time will be reserved for questions, which not be quantification. please make sure the ringers your telephones are turned off. we do not want to be rude to our speakers while they are talking. dr. welner, will you begin? thank you. >> thank you, a good morning, everyone. education is shaping up to the a major issue in this occasion

cycle, in this election cycle. the president has devoted the past week education cannot starting with an address on saturday and continue with the swing through ohio and yesterday he was in las vegas talking about budget cuts and teachers and growing class size. school toys is a big part of the education discussion. governor romney has made the voucherization a centerpiece of his policy. what he is promoting is federal vouchers, and his proposed policy would mark a huge change in the federal rol.e president has also promoted school choice policies, particularly charter schools. this strategy relies on scaling up nonprofit management organizations. these are thought to be

successful in working with students and high-poverty communities. as we will discuss, vouchers and charter schools are only two of the many types of school choice, and 1 policy can act differently from another. what is school choice? how can we most sensibly understand and the use school choice? gary miron and i set out to enter that, and our project resulted in the book that was just mentioned "exploring the school choice in a burst." the main rationale for this project was while there are schools score -- scores of other choices, they cover all just one or two types of choice.

listen to this. it is surprising how many issues there are. we have basic philosophical issues, questions about the legality, help parents make choices, how choice schools are held accountable, how they are funded and what incentives of rides. teacher quality issues, questions about innovation and innovativeness, the facts on segregation. and of course, the effects of choice policies on measured student outcomes. we asked experts to tell us what does the evidence say on these issues. we started to think about what do we mean by school choice.

school choice is not a single thing, so we identify different types of choice. charters and vouchers were two of those, but we also pointed to a home schooling, cyber schools, magnet schools, open enrollment policies, to between district school choice, and to tuition tax credits the provide a public subsidy to private school tuition. i call these neovouchers. i want to give a preliminary enter to my earlier question -- is school choice? there is a widespread misconception about school choice, and it is a complete policy in itself. in reality, it is a broad policy tool that can be included as part of a complete policy of complete education, and not a

policy any more than professional development is a policy or bell schedules are. at the most basic level school choice is an approach to student assignment. i might tell you i favor school choice, and my statement can be coherent and the sense that i might be a libertarian. when you hear me make a statement like i favor school choice, your next question should be, how deep you favor structuring or using school choice, what is your policy look like? that me and with something i hope will provoke a conversation as we open this up. our lawmakers are not asking these sensible questions. it seems they are looking at school choice as a policy, not

as a tool, and this misunderstanding blinds them to the ways school choice tools can be used. we and up with a choice that's based policies that are arrived at the fall or political pressure. this is rather than careful evidence-based deliberation. if we do not ask the right questions, we will not get the right answers. they can. 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. ote segregation by race, class, by ability, and by the language of instruction. this is something opponents aree 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 a, saying parents 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]

[conversation] >> tonight from the c-span video library, vice presidential candidate paul ryan on medicare, social security, and the rhine budget. he has appeared on c-span more than 400 times since he made his debut in 1995 when he was a congressional staffer. that is tonight, here on c-span at 8:00 eastern. >> i am not in the habit of breaking promises to my country, neither is governor palinn,

and when we tell you we will change washington and stop leaving our country's problems for some on bakir generation to fix, you can count on it. -- some on luckier generation to fix, you can count on it. we have a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to you. >> you have stood up, one by one, and said, enough with the politics of the past. you understand that, in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expected different result. you have shown what history teaches us. at defining moments like this, the change we need is not come from washington. the change comes to washington. >> c-span has aired every minute of every major party conventions

since 1984, and the countdown to the convention continues, with less than one week to go into our live gavel-to-gavel coverage as of the republican and democratic national conventions, live on c-span, c- span radio, and streamed online at c-span.org. starting next week with the republican convention, with chris christie in the keynote address. also with senator john mccain and former governor of florida jeb bush. democratic convention speakers include san antonio mayor julie in castro delivering the keynote address, plus first lady michelle obama and former president of clinton. >> what i like watching on c- span is the live coverage of debate going on on the floor. when i am clipping through the major news channels, there tends to be a lot of talking heads, not a lot of substantive talk about what is actually going on in the process. that is what i like about it, the fact that it is basically stripped of that layer of bias.

it is just showing us what is happening on the floor of the house of representatives in that moment. it is giving us that insight into how the process actually works. >> daniel watches our programming on comcast. c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979. barack you as a public service by your television provider. -- brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> in 25 minutes, attorney general eric holder will speak about civil-rights issues at the national lesbian gay and bisexual and transgender will conference. you can see it live at 7:30 eastern. until that coverage, here is part white house briefing from today.

good day, ladies and gentlemen. thank you for being here. i have no announcements. let's get started. associated press -- >> governor romney's campaign talk about energy today. some plans they were laying out would be creating more than 3 million jobs through the production of energy by 2020. does the president think some of these goals are unfeasible? >> what the president believes is that we need to pursue a policy that embraces a bold and robust all of the above approach to energy. what we know is that the policy the president has pursued has already led to the dublin -- a doubling of production of energy from wind and solar since the

president took office. under his leadership and his presidency, domestic production of oil and gas, natural gas, has increased. our reliance on imports of foreign oil has decreased to its lowest level in 16 years. what distinguishes the president's approach, the all of the above approach to our energy future, from the republican approach, is that the republican approach is essentially one that is dictated by big oil and focuses almost entirely on oil and fossil fuels. this president believes we need to embrace all forms of domestic energy, including oil, including natural gas, including nuclear energy, which, as you know, this

administration has invested in for the first time in 30 years, including rentals like wind and solar. the republican approach denigrates forms of energy like wind, but this president believes that investing in renewable energy is essential to enhancing our energy independence. i would note, as the president did last week, congressman ryan has called wind energy a fad. mitt romney -- the governor romney called it imaginary. this is a narrow view and a dangerous view, if you think about how important energy security is an domestic production of energy is to our national security interests. this president will continue to push for an all of the above energy approach that insures that we aggressively pursue

domestic oil and gas, aggressively pursue renewable energy production, and make the and just -- investments necessary to secure our future. >> some components include increased drilling off the coast of virginia and florida, increased energy production on federal land -- does the president see a place in american policy for some of these ideas that governor romney is proposing? >> i can tell you, as you know, under the present we have increased production on federal waters and lands. in the administration just finalized plan that will build on millions of acres we have made available for production offshore by making 75% of offshore resources available for production. again, if you look at the president's record, he has been very aggressive in pursuing ways to increase domestic production of energy. he has done it in a way that is

mindful of the need to produce it in a safe and reliable fashion. one other point i would now is that, again, a representative of the president's approach, the of the above approach, we now have more coal miners employed in this country and we have had in the past 15 years. this president believes that america's national security and energy independence depends on complete all of the above approach. it depends not only on focusing on domestic oil and gas production and big oil and insisting on continuing oil and gas subsidies while ending, for example, the wind energy tax credit that is so important to the development of the wind energy industry in this country as the president talked about last week, in which, as you know, his opponents oppose. this is despite the fact that republicans in key states where

wind energy is important support extending the tax credit. >> i wanted to ask you about the report from the cbo about the fiscal clef. it said that americans should expect a significant recession and 2 million lost jobs if the funding cuts and tax increases come through. the president -- does he believe in a balanced approach for the need to resolving this question, and congress needs to act -- what i wanted to act -- ask, is whether there is any formal process to get rolling ahead of the election, or if the president is -- thinks is more practical to wait after the election to do so? >> the president has been ready and remains ready to come to an agreement on a balanced approach to our fiscal challenges.

at any time that republicans demonstrate a willingness to accept the simple proposition that, in addition to spending cuts and in addition to entitlement reforms, revenue has to be part of it, as the simpson bowles commission made clear, the gang of six, and every other bipartisan group has looked at this and has made clear. unfortunately, republican intransigence, their insistence that millionaires and billionaires to tax cuts, has prevented the completion of an agreement on a balanced plan. what we do know, going to the cbo report, is that the single biggest component of the so- called fiscal clef is the middle class tax -- fiscal cliff is the so-called middle-class tax cuts that republicans and democrats believe should be extended. the senate passed a bill that

extended these tax cuts for 98% of the american people. the house ought to do the same. by doing that, we can alleviate some concern about the so-called fiscal cliff, which should not, regardless, take any pressure of congress from the absolute need to act. but it should demonstrate to the american people the ability of congress to come together and pass something that everybody says they agree on and the president agrees on. that is the single biggest concern of -- that makes up the so-called fiscal cliff. if they pass that tax cut tomorrow, that would go significant ways toward alleviating concerns about the fiscal cliff. >> given everybody campaigning, the absence of a former -- formal study -- >> he told you earlier this week, he recognizes the fact

that because congress will be in town for less than two weeks between now and the election, significant progress with congress may not be all that likely. there are things that congress absolutely must do, steps to ensure that we pass the continuing resolution and the government continues to function, with no threats of shutdowns, and other things they can do. what they can also do -- some work has been done -- they could pass the tax cut in a moment's notice. the house could do it when they come back and demonstrate to the american people that there is a serious of purpose here when it comes to recognizing the need to address some of the issues represented by the cbo report yesterday. >> any ideas on after the election, if we could address the fiscal cliff? >> the president is open to and

has said so, any indication from republicans that they are willing to drop their intransigence on this fundamental issue of whether or not we will move forward with the balanced plan -- it is not just a point of argument. it is not just, the president believes we have to have a balanced plan and these bipartisan commission's believe we have to have a balanced plan. every expert out there who is independent believes that is the right approach. everyone agrees on this because the consequences of not having a balanced plan are embodied in the republican budget proposal. in order to achieve the kind of deficit savings that are needed, it would unfairly burden america's seniors by voucher izing medicare and caused huge reductions in investments in education and innovation, research and development, the

kinds of things that are fundamentally important to our further economic growth in this century. so we do not need to do that. we do not need to ask seniors to pay $6,400 a year and last -- unless we believe the right approach is to adopt a republican plan that asks seniors for $6,400 extra to cover their health care costs because we are voucherizing medicare to pay for tax cuts to the wealthiest among us. that is not sound economic policy. we need a balanced plan. >> thanks. it was said this week that timothy dalton would be appearing at the rnc. do you have any speaking on how

that might reflect -- timrothy dolan might be appearing at the rnc. to have any thoughts and hamas reflect their relationship with the white house? >> there is a tradition of religious leaders giving prayers' at conventions. i do not see a problem with that. >> i have a question -- there is an article circulating around about some possible anarchist activity at both of the rnc and the dnc. is their advice the white house is giving to people who live in the area or anything in relation to people attending the conventions? >> i am not aware of the reports that you mentioned. it would certainly not before the white house to issue law enforcement guidons. i would point to local law enforcement.

as well as federal law enforcement. >> i think you were asking this earlier -- there has been pressure for the white house to release its beer recipe -- does the white house have any plans to release those? >> not that i am aware of. it is true that -- i do not always bring water out here. i think the president and the first lady were asked about this in an interview, which believe is published about how the white house bir kim jiabao.

-- how the house be your recipe came about. i will have to take the question and examine at -- taste it --. >> is the -- in the cbo report was a pretty dire warning. the president did not mention it yesterday. is there a reason why? >> i put out a statement in the white house and presidency -- he talks every day about what we need to do to help build our economy, help it to continue to grow. help it to continue to create jobs. yesterday and the day before, we focused on the need to continue investments in education. he firmly believes that education is a matter of our economy. it is an economic issue.

>> the cbo was talking about -- to the president talked but education, about todd a. can -- todd akin. >> he talked about what we need to do to help the economy grow and create jobs. his need is that we need to create a balanced budget to address the challenges. the so-called fiscal clef is being brought about by -- a fiscal cliff is being brought about by attempts to enact the budget control act. >> he is not an innocent bystander here -- >> here is the question -- do you think the president is showing as much economic leadership as he could? >> yes.

there is an enormous conflict between american leadership -- in american leadership about whether or not we need to extend and sometimes give even greater tax cuts to the top 2% of american owners -- earners. that debate is unlikely to be resolved between now and the election. the president talks about how in many ways the voters will help resolve it by the election. what we can say, and this goes right to the issue of the fiscal cliff, is that we should absolutely extend tax cuts for 98% of americans and 97% of american small businesses tomorrow. that would demonstrate to the american people and people around the world that, despite our differences, we can come

together and do the practical thing, the sensible thing, to help our economy grow, avert some of the factors of the so- called fiscal cliff. that would give people a lot of reassurance to continue to address these challenges and make sure the sequester does not come about. it was designed to be so bad -- we do know we agree on this. the biggest component of the so- called fiscal cliff -- if we pass that, that would have a positive impact in the wrong number cents and psychologically. it would demonstrate that washington is willing, despite psychological differences, to do the right thing. i am not aware that anybody is

up on capitol hill,. >> why has he not been talking about this? >> he talks about this frequently. he has been focusing in education. in numerous speeches, he talks for much about -- you saw him repeatedly talk about the need to extend a class tax cut. i am standing here today speaking for him and for the white house and the administration talking about the need to do that. we would welcome in a heartbeat a willingness by republican leaders in the house to schedule and pass a vote on the extension of middle-class tax cuts. we can agree that our differences on the remaining 2% remain, that we do not agree on that issue, and that that might have to be dealt with after the election. but if we took that action on the 98%, it would demonstrate a seriousness of perspurpose and

would be very helpful to the american people, it would have insurance uncertainty about their taxes and to the economy at large. >> to follow up on energy -- why do you and the president continue to refer to it as an all of the above approach when there are components that republicans are urging for the reject, such as the keystone pipeline? >> we have not rejected anything. it is a process at the state department that was delayed because one, there was concern about folks in nebraska, including the republican governor, about the original proposed route, and then on house republicans' insistence on including it as part of the payroll tax cut extension. the all of the above approach is, as you know, this administration has approved other pipelines, including transnational pipelines. it has approved expanded

drilling on water and on land, federal and public. it has approved -- >> you do not mean it -- >> i do not mean that every single product has been approved, but every single form of energy has enjoyed the aggressive support of this administration. that includes nuclear, wind, solar, biodiesel, and, as you know, oil and gas. >> the cbo said we might be on the verge of another recession. to his point, with nothing on the president's public special -- schedule, why no meetings with congressional leaders? he has not had meetings with them in weeks, if not months. >> congressional leaders, rab republican leaders, have been very clear that they will hold hostage 98% of the american people to their insistence that millionaires and billionaires to tax cuts.

they could change their mind about out and agree with not just the president and democrats, but the vast majority of the american people. my guess is 98% would like to have their tax cut next year, if they simply said, ok, let's agree to disagree on the 2%. let's pass the 90%. that would in a single stroke address a significant cut -- portion of the concern about the so-called fiscal cliff. it would not entirely deal with it, but it would have significant impact. the president will be out there calling on congress to take action on the middle-class tax cut, extending it for 98% of americans. hopefully republicans will, for two reasons, one, because it is the right thing to do for the american people, but to, because of the american -- because of

the political pressure, reevaluate the situation, and take it vantage of the few days they are actually back in washington to pass this bill that we all agree should be passed into law. >> you previously said, why raise taxes on people during an economic slowdown? you are talking about the 98%, but the republican view has been again and again that if you raise taxes on the wealthy you are going to add to the economic slowdown. we know what their view is. we know what your view is. my question is, why are they not in a room trying to negotiate, which is what president and leaders normally do? >> we are clearly at loggerheads when it comes to the top 2%. we are in total agreement when it comes to the 90%. it stands to reason that we should be able to agree on what we agree on. they can -- we should be able to continue to debate what we disagree on. it is unhelpful to the economy

and certainly not useful for the american people to insist that 98% of you will not get a tax well-nless the top 2% of yo to-do americans get a tax cut. in terms of the president's position on this, it has been his position for a long time. the fact of the matter is that an economist will tell you that a tax cut for middle-class americans has far greater positive economic impact than a tax cut for people in the top 2%. they do not necessarily spend it and injected back into the economy. it does not have the same macro economic impact. when you are weighing what we need to do to help the economy grow as we deal with our deficits, we simply cannot afford to spend that extra $1 trillion on another tax cut for

the wealthiest 2% of the american people. here is the thing. some of the very leaders in congress today, republican leaders in the house, stood before us, i was a reporter then, and declared on the eve of the vote for the bill clinton budget in 1993, it raised marginal tax rates on wealthier americans, they declared it would cause a recession if they pass the bill and signed into law, it would cause economic decline, it would cause job loss. we can all agree he was wrong -- they were wrong. what we got instead was sustained economic growth, significant job creation, 23 million, 24 million jobs, and the only time in our lifetimes when the budget has been balanced. and millionaires and billionaires grew at a rapid pace.

so the president's position is, you have to have a balanced approach. we need tax cuts for the middle- class. we cannot afford tax cuts to the wealthiest. >> what you -- do you have a view on this book by a navy seal who will talk about the bin modern raid? this seems to be a concern that somebody who has that kind of intimate knowledge will put that into a book. does the white house share that concern? >> one of my colleagues here noted yesterday, we were on aware of this book until yesterday with the press report about it. i do not know what is in it. we would refer you to the defense department since it is supposedly written by someone in the military, a retired person and a daughter. i do not know anything else about. >> the "new york times" is reporting today that calls for

greater access to funds may have improved access to loans. you have any reaction? >> we have a long history of supporting politicians on both sides of the aisle. as most of you who have covered the rulemaking process know, these decisions on grants are made on merits. as they said in the story, it would be a huge mistake to draw any link between the number of meetings that o.i.r.a. called with outsiders and the outcome of any role. they meet with any entity that asks. that is their policy. they also met four times with -- three times in the american lung association and three times the american academy of pediatrics. it is standard policy that they meet with anyone who asked for a

meeting, rather than just any of these issues that come before them. >> does this create a negative image for the president? >> the approach for renewable energy is an issue in this campaign. it is when he is proud to have an issue -- be an issue. when he was out in iowa last week, speaking about else -- and has spoken about elsewhere, he firmly believes that our energy future in this country will be more secure. therefore, our national security will be enhanced, if we pursue policies that expand domestic oil and gas production, that aggressively invest in and expand renewable energy sources, that make investments

in nuclear energy -- this is an approach that we have to take. he -- republicans have made an issue of this. it is one that he is very happy to debate. >> the story does not call into question his views on and all of the above approach, but more so his ties? >> my reading of the story -- it's simply said the the big assertion in the story is -- >> you can see the rest of this at c-span.org. we are going live to see attorney general eric holder talk about civil rights issues before the international lgbt bar association conference. the executive director of the group is introducing mr.holder. >> good evening. you can do better than that -- a good evening. [applause] that is better. we are so very proud of the law

firms with us tonight. we have been sponsoring this bar association of and for more than 10 years now. it is really incredible to sit here with my colleagues from the affinity group, which has grown in years, thanks to in part to d'arcy and her organization. we're proud to see the diversity of the sitting here today. we have members of the military, participating in uniform. [applause] we have other bar association members who have changed the face of law for all of us, not just in the profession, but as lgbt individuals. we are so thankful to be here. without further ado, i am interested in seeing mr. holder myself. we look forward to seeing you

throw the rest of the conference. thanks. [applause] >> we look forward to seeing you, laura, and everybody, at 25th anniversary in san francisco. in out speaker tonight is not just the top lawyer in the united states. he is also a giant in the field of civil-rights and the law. while in law school at columbia, eric holder clerk at the naacp legal defense fund and the department of justice criminal division. on graduating, he joined the department of justice as part of the attorney general's office -- honors program. he was nominated in 1988 by president reagan to be a court judge in the district of columbia. in 1997, he was named by president clinton to be deputy attorney general, the first african american named to the post. in december to designate, president obama served him --

nominated him to serve as attorney general of the united states. his tenure at the department of justice has included some of the most significant work on behalf of the lgbt community to ever come out of that cabinet agency. as legal challenges to the so- called defense of marriage act have moved to the judiciary, attorney general holder has refused to defend it in court, acknowledging that the law cannot pass constitutional scrutiny and serves no purpose other than to unlawfully discriminated against lgbt families. we are honored to have him with us. few people have broken down so many barriers, inspired some of people, or worked so valiantly on behalf of equality under a lot. join me in welcoming the 82nd attorney general of the united states, eric holder. [applause]

>> thank you. this is not starting out like one of my congressional hearings. [laughter] good evening. thank you, darcy, for this kind words. thank you all for such a warm welcome. it is a pleasure to be here tonight and a privilege to join with each of you and with so many members of the national

lgbt bar association in celebrating and renewing our shared commitment to advancing the cause of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. [applause] i would like to recognize the association's staff and the entire leadership team and thank them for all they have done to bring us together for this year's lavender law conference and career fair. for more than two decades, this important annual of that has brought together hundreds of legal practitioners and law students from across the country. this provides an opportunity to highlight the extraordinary work that this organization's members are leading and participating in every day. it offers a chance to reflect on the progress that in the past few years each of you has helped to make possible and to reaffirm how -- our determination to carry this essential work into

the future. because of your dedicated efforts, you have made this year's gathering the largest minority recruiting event in the country. [applause] and the most successful lavender law conference, with over 260 employees in attendance, including multiple representatives from the united states department of justice. [applause] in fact, i am pleased to report that we are joined tonight by a number of senior department leaders as well as five united states attorneys who are strong lgbt allies. linda, and the northern district of california. -- from the northern district of california. david, from the western district of pennsylvania.

amanda, from the district of oregon. stephen, from the southern district of illinois. michael, from the middle district of georgia. and my man, robert, from the western district of texas. [applause] through workshop sessions, career counseling, and panel discussions, this conference is providing a unique opportunity for mentoring and engaging among some of the best attorneys in america on cutting edge legal issues. your help and to call attention to obstacles and biases both

overt and subtle that continue to affect far too many lgbt americans every day. you are encouraging collaboration, cooperation, and more effective advocacy as we seek to design and implement innovative strategies to confront the most persistent challenges that far too many americans face. as attorney general, i consider it a privilege to be a part of this annual gathering and to join such a diverse group of partners, colleagues, and friends in working to strengthen our nation's legal community and legal system. as an american, i am deeply proud to stand with you in celebrating the remarkable, unimaginable progress, particularly over the last three and a half years -- >[applause] the progress that your leadership and coordinated efforts have helped to bring about.

we come together tonight at an exciting moment. thanks to the work a tireless advocate, advocates of the attorneys in and far beyond this room, our nation has made great strides on the road to lgbt the quality and the unfinished struggle to protect and secure the civil rights of all americans. for president obama, myself, and colleagues at all level of the administration, this work has long been a top priority. i am pleased to note it has resulted in meaningful, measurable, and in during the change. we can all be proud of that today. for the first time in history, those who courageously serve the country in uniform need to know longer hide -- need no longer hide their sexual orientation. [applause]

as we approach the one-year anniversary of the end of don't ask, don't tell, it is worth celebrating that some of the brave servicemen and women can now serve their country proud the, honestly, openly, and without fear of discharge. we can take pride in the fact that early last year president obama and i directed justice department attorneys not to defend the constitutionality of section 3 of the defense of marriage act. [applause] since then, we have seen and encouraging and increasing

number of courts hold this provision to be unconstitutional, including a federal district court in connecticut that found that it fails to survive constitutional scrutiny just last month. we can be encouraged by robust efforts that our department of justice is leading to insure the vigorous enforcement of the civil-rights provisions to safeguard lgbt individuals and others from the most brutal forms of bias-motivated violence. thanks to the outstanding leadership of my assistant attorney general and the dedication of attorneys, law enforcement officials, and support staff and partner agencies, today this work is stronger than ever before. let's hear it for tom and the civil rights division. [applause] our resolve to meet the evolving

threats with new vigilance has never been more clear. this past april, the department issued its first ever indictment for a hate crime based on sexual orientation on the matthew shepherd hate crimes convention act. [applause] this is a landmark measure signed into law by president obama in 2009, which many of the people in this room helps to move forward in relation to an alleged anti-gay hate crime in kentucky. we continue to review cases that may fall under this legislation. we are working to strengthen our ability to achieve justice on behalf of those victimized simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. we stand ready to vigorously pursue allegations of federal hate crimes wherever they arise to bring charges were ever they are warranted and support the efforts of our state and local law enforcement partners to

enforce their own hate crimes laws. the civil rights division is also taking the lead in bolstering our ability to educate and train federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement officials on sexual orientation and gender identity based discrimination in order to insure that, for those who serve on the front line, they are well equipped to prevent, identify, and stop this wherever it occurs. last month, the department filed a historic consent agreement with the city of norman's to address allegations of discrimination and harassment by -- new orleans to address allegations of discrimination and harassment by local police, including against lgbt individuals. in a broader efforts, we have demonstrated the importance and in practice of working with elected and appointed authorities to identify troubling practices, correct patterns of increased -- repeated violations, and craft policies and procedures to make state the rights of those law

enforcement officers have sworn to serve and protect. we have taken increasing awareness of the rights that -- rolls the community leaders and educators can take in protecting a variety of vulnerable populations, particularly the youngest members of our society. we were to expand the protections so that our children can feel safe in their homes, on our streets, and especially in our schoolyards and classrooms. as many of you know all too well, every year, bullying touches the lives of countless young people. as we have seen all too clearly, it can have a devastating and potentially life on impact. in response, the department has been collaborating with educators, administrators, and students in school districts nationwide to investigate an address this problem behavior. we work with partners, including federal allies like the department of education under the leadership of secretary arne

duncan, to explore ways to stop harassment and bullying before they start. in places like minnesota, where the investigation found that some students faced threats, physical violence, a derogatory violence, and other forms of harassment on a daily basis. we have successfully engaged with school officials to lay out a detailed blueprints for sustainable perform -- reform. we will continue to promote safe and healthy learning environments to support a student nondiscrimination act that will better addressed harassment and bullying based on an individual's real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. we will provide assistance to bullying victims and work closer with local leaders, parents, educators, and young people themselves to make certain that all of our students, all of our students can feel safe and free to be themselves in its schools.

beyond these efforts, the justice department continues to support and to fight for legislative and policy reforms like an inclusive nondiscrimination act, which would extend -- [applause] -- which would extend protections to lgbt individuals in all workplaces khama and an updated violence against women act -- [applause] an updated violence against women act that would insure that the law's nondiscrimination provisions cover sexual orientation and gender identity. this is something we are fighting about -- why this is something we are fighting about is beyond me. this is something that needs to happen, and needs to happen now. [applause]

even in the face of what are truly extraordinary budget challenges, we remain determined to use every available resource to build the necessary institutional and legal frameworks 2 and harassment, violence, and discrimination, and to provide a safeguard for lgbt americans, my fellow citizens, that are long overdue. my colleagues are not content to advocate and speak up for these changes and return -- reforms. winners stand the importance of leading by example. that is why this justice department and a range of agencies have taken decisive action to create a more inclusive work environment for our own employees. this is to strengthen our mission of serving all americans by recruiting and retaining highly qualified individuals like you who will reflect our nation's rich diversity and make a sustained and concerted effort

to provide the opportunities, support, and respect for every aspiring public servant to develop, grow, and thrive. no one understands the importance of creating such an environment or has advocated more passionately on behalf of the lgbt community and my boss, president obama. -- a van my boss, president obama. -- than my boss, president obama. [applause] thanks to his leadership, this administration has made historic strides in sending a clear message that the federal government is open to everyone. it is an employer that accept and respect every potential employee. for instance, in the justice department, i launched a new diversity management initiative in 2010 to expand and strengthen strategies and

programs for promoting fairness, equality, and opportunity for every member of the doj family, which today includes a number of openly gay and lesbian attorneys, including my friend robert. as well as senior department leaders, u.s. marshals, the director of the transgender law institute, and three of the attorneys recently named to the national lgbt bar association's best lawyers under 40. [applause] and, an extremely dedicated and ever-expanding membership of a wonderful organization known as doj pride.

earlier, we held a workshop focused on inclusion that discussed lesbian, gay, transgendered, and bisexual inclusion as an inclusive way -- as important way to include all individuals in your place. we also act -- asked that every federal prison will appoint an lgbt representative to their employment program to help start a dialogue about issues facing staff members who serve in more than 120 facilities nationwide. i believe these actions and policies constitute promising steps in the right direction. like everyone here tonight, i recognize that our journey as a nation and as a legal profession is far from over. i know that the progress we seek is not always come as quickly as we might help or as easily as we

would like. that is why tonight i am not a cure to thank you all for what you have done to bring us to this point, to highlight the administration's efforts, or to celebrate all we have achieved together. i'm also here to ask for your continued help, to draw on your considerable passion and expertise, and to reiterate the department's commitment and my own to building on the momentum that we have established and insuring the the recent successes we have seen have -- are just the beginning. current and aspiring leaders of the bench and bar, everybody here tonight understands what is at stake. you realize how important every hard-fought legal victory, large and small, really is. you all are or soon will be uniquely situated to use the power of the law and your own gifts and knowledge to help build a more fair and equal and more just society. you have not only the power, but, i believe, the solemn

responsibility to do precisely that. to safeguard the rights and freedoms of everyone in this country, to carry on the critical but unfinished work that lies ahead. this has never been and never will be easy, but as a look around this room, i cannot help but feel optimistic about where your efforts will lead us and how far our commitment will take us in the months and years ahead. with the benefit of your partnership, the strength of your passion, i know that we can, and i am confident that we will, continue the work that has been our share priority and our common cause. i look forward to all that we will share and accomplish together. thank you very much. [applause]

>> wow, frankie so much, attorney general. i have the unenviable position of following that. ladies and gentlemen, if you give me a few minutes, i will play you and acoustic bluegrass gospel song following that. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> attorney general holder's cummins will air again later tonight. in four days, gavel-to-gavel coverage of republican -- the republican convention in tampa. c-span, your front-row seats to the conventions. coming up, a look at rice -- republican vice-presidential candidate paul ryan in his own

words. that is followed by a campaign rally with his running mate, mitt romney, in new mexico. later, we hear from terry o'neil, president of the national organization for women, on her party's election season. now, from the c-span video library, we take a look at congressman paul ryan in his own words on medicare, social security, and the ryan budget. two journalists examine some of the major elements that make up the rhine budget plan. this is 35 minutes. >> as you know, congressman, the obligation to our kids -- i've heard is $9 trillion. the cbo estimates that by 2020 the entire federal budget will be interest on the debt, social security, medicare, medicaid. the reason we have this is a huge -- this huge debt is because no party is able to on theiow