this is about paying for the war in iraq which i was opposed to but i believe we still have an obligation to pay for, including the one million new veterans that were created that are currently strirninge v.a. system. in addition, this is a vote about paying for the tax cuts in 1 and 203 that continued through 2010 based on the mistaken notion, the theology that was applied suggesting that in fact tax cuts pay for themselves. this is about a turn around of a projected surplus of $5 trillion that instead became ongoing deficits and debt noted for the ill-conceived policies that many of our friends on the other side embraced. under the hubris of suggesting that you can have it all. when else in american history, when else have we embraced the

idea enunciated not long ago by the former majority leader of the republican party who suggested that it was patriotic in a time of war to cut taxes. lincoln and roosevelt certainly didn't embrace that position. you can't have it all. what was desirable by the republican party during those years was essentially this -- they were going to score political points on the issue of the debt ceiling. they were going to hold the debt ceiling hostage for isolated issues that placated a minority of the majority. now i know most of the republicans who have come to this floor today and i want to tell you, my knowledge of them is they're very responsible when it comes to budge tiering but they're -- to budgeteering, but they're caught by the minority

of their majority who direct where these decisions go. the result of our last standoff over the debt ceiling, our credit was downgraded. look at the strength of the american dollar today. why is it in that position? i've never been anywhere where the world doesn't say, we honor the american dollar. the point that i offered a moment ago is the following. they were prepared to default on that debt for the purpose of isolated, strident political views outside of the mainstream. job creation? it was held hostage. fewer jobs were created than at any time since the great depression. that is not an opinion, that's a fact. now this behavior was unacceptable and the american people said so. you pay for what you spend. raising the debt ceiling ensures that we will not be a deadbeat nation in the eyes of the world, nor in the eyes of our own citizenry. not long ago, we passed an

omnibus spending bill, incidentally, because it will break down in the regular order here, the idea that we used to spend according to the 12 to 13 appropriation bills that guided us every year, known as regular order, where members had a chance to amend spending bills in committee and then on the floor, i must tell you, that's a quaint reservoir of thought these days. now we wrap it all up and the same people that could say, well i'm going to pass the omnibus spending bill to take care of favored spending and then say, i'm not going to vote to raise the debt ceiling, the argument is anachronistic. i support this measure, having voted against the bush tax cuts, having voted against the war in iraq, having voted against most of the policies that got us into this. but this is about the full faith and credit of the united states and it should be embraced by the entirele boddy. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentlelady, the leader of the democratic caucus in the house, nancy pelosi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentleman for yielding, i thank him for his leadership on this important issue, to him, to mr. levin and the member os they have ways and means committee, thank you for making clear what the stakes are in this vote on the floor today. mr. speaker, the 14th amendment of our constitution declares, and i quote, the validity of the public debt of the united states authorized by law shall not be questioned. that -- unquote. that has always tpwheb -- been the standard upheld and advocated by house democrats. of my conversations with speaker boehner, i have conveyed the unwavering support of the house democratic caucus for a

clean bill to lift the debt ceiling. that means no goodies for one side or the other. there's nothing you could add to it that would say, ok, since it's something i like, i dent mind if it isn't clean -- i don't mind if it isn't clean. i said even if you added something i cared about a grea deal, that our caucus cared about a great deal that does not make it right. because the full faith and credit should be unquestioned and it is not negotiable. i thank the speaker for giving us this opportunity. this is really important. to bring legislation to the floor that is consistent with the intent of the constitution and with the best interests of the american people. well, i'll tell you this, we have heard from all kinds of leaders of finance, from the boardroom, to the kitchen table. the boardroom tells us, the conference table then writes to

us and says, we urge you to again take the necessary steps to preserve our nation's financial standing in the world and help ensure that the american recovery continues in its current path toward restored prosperity by the uncertainty as to whether or not we will incur an historic default in raising the debt ceiling. i wish to submit this full letter to the record with the cigna tores who -- with the signators who represent the captains of finance and industry in our country. but more important than that, as important as that is, our global standing in the world. more important to each and every person in our country, is what mr. neal spelled out. what this means to you. . if you're a consumer with a credit card, if we did not take this action today, interest rates could skyrocket, making it harder for families to get

loans, for small businesses to invest, spend and hire. again, on your kitchen table, as you pay the bills each month, you would have higher interest rates for your mortgage, your car payments, your student loans and your credit card bills. higher interest rates once again on small business loans that are useed to -- that are used to pay employees or expand business. significant blows would come to 401-k's as a result of the stock market reaction to our not lifting the debt ceiling. credit markets could freeze the value of the dollar -- could freeze, the value of the dollar would be negatively impacted. so there's a great deal at stake in this vote today. and, again, at the time when we have to lift the debt ceiling, it is appropriate to have a discussion of spending priorities, of budgets that should be a statement of our values. but there should be no question that those debates would be

something that would not just be a debate, but be a barrier to lifting the debt ceiling. that's why i'm grateful to the speaker and the republican leadership for giving this house this opportunity to act in a way that is consistent with the constitution. when this measure passes today, congress will state unequivalentically that the full faith and credit of the united states of america is not in doubt. i thank my democratic colleagues for never waivering from this position and standing firm on behalf of all americans and i thank, once again, the speaker for giving us this opportunity to associate ourselves and support the constitution and the american people. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. without objection, the material referenced by the gentlelady will be included -- will be

included in the record. the gentleman from michigan. the gentleman is recognized. >> the budget control act was signed into law on august 2. on august 5, standard & poors downgraded the u.s. credit rating. mr. camp: and did so, and i quote, did so, and i quote, the doubt downgrade reflects you are opinion -- the downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what in our view would be necessary to stabilize the government's median term debt dynamics. there have been some speakers who have come to this floor that said we were downgraded because of brinksmanship, we were downgraded because there were those of us who wanted to see some approach to fiscal responsibility in our debt limit negotiations. clearly that's revisionist history and the facts bear out. standard & poors's own quote was because we didn't go far enough. not because we tried to address long-term term and

debt. so this reinforces my point. we can't be satisfied with just increasing the debt limit. i realize that is where we are today and as i've said, i will vote for this legislation. but as another speaker has said, they have viewed this as non-negotiable. and what we really need to do is reach across the aisle and work together to find long-term solutions to both our medium term and long-term debt obligations so that these programs, like medicare and social security, these valuable programs that serve many of our citizens are not only viable today but well into the future. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i inquire the amount of time left on both sides. the chair: the gentleman from new york has -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york has 25 minutes remaining. the gentleman from michigan has 25 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. crowley: thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan and the ranking member on the ways and means committee, mr. levin.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan, mr. levin, is recognized for two minutes. without objection. mr. levin: well, we've been adamant about a clear, clean debt ceiling vote. and now it's happening. it should have happened the last time. and because of the republican position, a high price was paid. jobs were lost, 120,000. the stock market plunged nearly 20%. economic growth was slowed. significantly. so this time around we're going to do the right thing. the gentleman from michigan, my colleague, the chairman of the committee, talked about working together and i want to close by

suggesting now with this vote in terms of the debt ceiling, we've cleared the deck. let us now take up the other issues of major importance to the people of this country. and one of them is unemployment insurance. as we stand here today, isolated maybe by the walls around this chamber, but i hope not, 1.7 million people have lost every dime of their unemployment insurance, long-term unemployed. all right, we're clearing the decks. now let's pay attention to the business of the american people, in addition to full faith and credit. we should not be leaving here with 1.7 million americans out the cold because too many

people in this institution haven't been willing to listen to their stories. listen and act. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: at this time i yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, the minority whip, on the democratic side, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the speaker. and i thank the gentleman from new york and i thank the gentleman from michigan. let me start by saying, this issue ought not to be subject to a debate. america, the greatest land on the face of the earth, and one

of the most economic -- economically successful countries in history, won't pay its bills. i can't believe there's any american that thinks america should or would welch on that which it owes. that's not a very sophisticated argument. i can make a more sophisticated argument. but when it comes down to it, that's the issue. will america pay its bills? will it give confidence to the investor community? will it give confidence to the business community? will it give confidence to our own citizens? indeed, will we give confidence to the world? that the world's leader can manage its own affairs responsibly. i want to join leader pelosi in congratulating the speaker for bringing this bill to the floor. he brings it to the floor because he knows, as i've just

said, there is no alternative for america but to pay its bills. he brings it to the floor because he knows if he doesn't, the business community is going to think that the majority party in this house cannot manage the affairs of the united states of america in a responsible fashion. he brings it to the floor apparently with some doubts as to whether or not those who have elected him speaker will follow him in taking the responsible path. my presumption is, although i don't know, is that the gentleman who chairs the ways and means committee will vote for this. my presumption is mr. cantor, the majority leader, will vote for this. my presumption is that speaker boehner will vote for this. my presums is based upon the pact -- presumption is based on upon the fact that they've

represented that there's not an alternative that's a responsible one. i doubt that there are many people on this floor who have urged us to pursue a big deal more than i have. i voted against the last budget agreement otherwise known as ryan-murray because i thought it was too small and did not move us towards fiscal responsibility and sustainability in the magnitude that it should have. having said that, however, there is no alternative to pay the bills that we have incurred , that the house, the senate and the president on behalf of the american people have incurred. and because we are a great nation, we will certainly not welch on our debts. will the gentleman yield me three additional minutes? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional three minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for an dditional three minutes. mr. hoyer: i knew he was going to yield me three minutes. so we come to this time with not many people on the floor. although we have demagogued this issue in the past. we, both sides, let's be clear. on our side we said that the republicans cut revenues, therefore they were responsible for the debt. on their side they say democrats spent money and invested money and therefore they're responsible for the debt. the fact of the matter is, we were all responsible for the debt. the fact of the matter is, under the reagan administration, when i came to congress, we substantially increased the national debt and we could only do so with ronald reagan's signature. and then under george bush the

first, we substantially increased the debt, we could only do so with george bush's signature. and under bill clinton we brought the debt down for four years running, and we ran surpluses for the next four. and of course republicans were in the house and in charge for six years. so it was a team effort, if you will. and we had a budget surplus. and then in the second bush administration, we substantially increased the budget deficit. we had two wars that we paid for none. $1 trillion-plus in additional deficit. many trillions over time. and so, my friends, we come to the floor today to do the only responsible alternative available to us. but that does not mean that anybody who votes for this believes that it is not critically important for us to have america on a fiscally

sustainable path. the business round table has urged us to pass this bill. as leader pelosi quoted, the chamber of commerce said not to do so will put our country and our economy at risk. and yet i fear there are going to be apparently a significant amount of people who will come and vote no. vote no on paying america's bills. vote no on giving confidence to the international community that america is in fact able to manage its affairs. there ought to be no debate, as i said, when it comes to making sure we pay our bills on time. the bills congress has incurred. as i said, the business round able was quoted as saying, urgent action is required on the part of congress in order

to prevent a default. in fact, he said, if we , all ed, every american 315 million-plus, would feel the negative effects. why would anybody vote against such a bill? one additional minute. is that possible? are you running out of time? ok. you're running out of time. so, 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: i will conclude because my friend is running out of time. this is not a partisan vote. and should not be viewed as such. republicans and democrats have voted to protect the american people, provide for the national defense and provide for the general welfare of our country, pursuant to our constitutional responsibilities.

having done so, there is no responsible alternative but to pay our bills. that's what this vote is about. let's show the courage, the wisdom, the common sense to do just that. vote yes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: i would just point outer to my friends on the other side -- out to my friends on the other side that in recent memory there have been seven instances where debt limits were part of other major pieces of legislation. for example, in the first bush administration there was a balanced budget in emergency deficit act. in the clinton administration there were reconciliations act, as well as the contract with america advancement act. in the obama administration there was stimulus, pay as you go, budget control act, so this has happened seven times. .

in recent history. why can't it happen now? the difference is, you had both parties willing to come together and negotiate major pieces of legislation that would help to address the short-term, medium, and long-term drivers of our debt. what we have now is a very open admission that it's absolutely nonnegotiable. that this is a straight increase in debt limit without any of these legislations even though this happened seven times in the past. i would just say that debt limit increases are often parts of larger pieces of legislation and it would not be unusual and i think it's a sad day when the other side has a take it or leave it approach and is unwilling to come together with the republicans to find a way to bring other legislation to the floor that will help address the drivers of our debt. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has reserved this egentleman from new york.

mr. crowley: i yield two minutes to the ranking member of the financial services committee, ms. waters. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. waters: thank you, mr. speaker. once again, it's the house democrats required to take important action to protect our nation's well being. today, most house republicans will once again refuse to stand behind the full faith and credit of the united states, threatening an economic catastrophe for all americans. when republicans pushed our nation to the brink of default last year, refusing to increase the debt limit, businesses large and smalligan to cut back by slowing spending and hiring. consumer confidence fell faster than at any other time since the financial crisis in 2008. potential home buyers didn't buy homes. but despite these warnings, house republicans still want to push us to default and the consequences would be

disastrous. the value of our 401k's and iras would plummet, significantly hurting those saving for retirement. for consumers, a default would make credit cards, mortgages, student, and automobile loans more expensive. default would lead to a u.s. credit rating downgrade, making it harder for businesses to hire new employees and our cities and states to finance schools and hospitals, roads and bridges. mr. speaker, the american people cannot afford another round of republican recklessness. everyone from wall street c.e.o.'s to conservative economists agree, we need to honor our debt. i and my democratic colleagues will once again do what is necessary. i urge the republicans to put americans before ideology and support this legislation to raise the debt ceiling. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i yield two minutes

to the gentleman from california, mr. honda. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. honda: i want to thank my friend for yielding. mr. speaker, today u.s. congress is doing its job. five days after forcing the treasury to resort to extraordinary measures to finance our government and three legislative days before an unprecedented default. this marks the fourth time in the last three years we have been pushed right to the brink of default. everyone outside of this chamber knows we could have and should have lifted the debt ceiling long before we arrived at this point. i'm glad to see that once again we've been able to do our most basic job. but we need to stop playing these political games with our economy, our stability, and our reputation. we should not be forced to wonder year after year if we're going to be able to decide to meet our obligations.

we should guarantee that the only time we debate spending is during spending debates. i would ask my colleagues to help me reform this process and install a permanent fix to end the brinksmanship surrounding the debt limit. that's why i introduced two bills that allow the debt limit to be raised unless a supermajority of congress votes to block them. this would shift the role of congress to kiss approving debt ceiling increases instead of being forced to approve them. my approach has been introduced in the other chamber by a number of senators and has been endorsed by a growing numb of economists and outside thought leaders. today i urge my colleagues to vote yes to lift the debt limit with me today but i also ask my colleagues to join me in ursuing permanent, necessary changes for tomorrow so we can

eliminate this hostage taking. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from texas, ms. sheila jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much. as i have listened to debate on the floor of ethe house, i have seen that members are coming from all regions of the united states which means that in fact this will be impacting all of our constituents. i would hope republicans would join the democrats who will vote by and large in almost near 100% to do what the federal reserve chairman, former chairman, ben bernanke said, to avoid a government shutdown and perhaps even more so, a failure to raise the debt limit could have serious consequences for the financial market and for the economy. but more importantly, it will cost student loans much more to ur young aspirants who are

attempting to develop an expertise to contribute to this society. it could increase payments by $2,000 for 531,327 texas students who rely on loans to go to college. mr. speaker, i don't want to do that. higher interest rates for mortgages and auto loans and student loans and credit cards. mr. speaker, i don't want to do that. families -- families re' tirmente savings and 401k's dropping as the stock market plummets, reminding us of four years ago when we had one of the worst plummets we have experienced in the last administration. 3.4 million veterans not receiving disability. i know we dent want to do that 10 million americans not receiving their social security check on time in just the first week. we cannot do that. drug reimbursements under medicare stopping and doctors and hospitals not getting paid. i know members of congress will not and do not want to do that. so a clean debt ceiling is the

only direction. but we have some other options. we can do this in a bipartisan manner. we can have the democrats standing tall as they have advocated for a clean debt ceiling but we can join with our partners and we can acknowledge the fact that the government is not broke. we can invest in infrastructure. we can as my colleague has said, congressman levin, we can extend the unemployment insurance and provide for education and provide for research and development, we can build this country, it's time now to vote for a clean debt ceiling and do it together so we can nst in america. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. camp: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. crowley: i appreciate my colleagues, all my colleagues for coming down to the floor this afternoon to speak in favor of this proposed bill. i think it's note worthy to point out that only the gentleman from michigan has come down to speak on behalf of the

majority today and abley, i should say. he's voting for this bill and i appreciate his support. i notice that no one took time in opposition on the other side of the aisle. maybe they don't care as much about this issue as we thought they did. but the reality is, every vote against this bill is a vote for default. now our republican colleagues have an answer for that. they have a plan. they intend to default someday so they have a plan. it's a bill they call the full faith and credit act. we call it the pay china first act. it says in the event of a default, we will pay those people who own our bonds, we will pay foreign governments first and everyone else gets put down to the bottom of the barrel. but they have a plan. republicans have a plan in the case that we default. let me just say, mr. speaker, i think it is totally irresponsible to even have had a debate on this floor on a bill that would determine the payments of our debt in lieu of

default. i think it's irresponsible. the fact that we've had these manmade brinksmanships is irresponsible. once again the republican party and their caucus is showing that they're not responsible enough to be ruling and to be governing here in the house of representatives. mr. speaker, with that, i yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from mr. -- from michigan. mr. camp: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. camp: we have heard a lot of talk about how the nation must pay its bills but one major reason we're in this position is an unpaid-for trillion dollar stimulus bill that did not increase economic growth, did not create jobs, and simpley added to our debt. i know there are some on the other side who want to keep on spending no matter what the impact is on our credit rating. and while i believe that we must

increase our debt limit, i'm clearly not satisfied that there are no provisions that would help us address the long-term drivers of this debt. but i will say that it's disappointing that the democrats have walked away from the table. it's disappointing that we are not engaged in a more serious debate today a debate about policy and how we rein in what really has become runaway debt. but as i said, for as disappointed as i am in that, i cannot in good conscience let the democrats re-- democrats' refusal to engage lead to a default so i will vote yes on this legislation today. but it's hardly a solution to our looming debt crisis. that's why the ways and means committee will continue to move forward on reforming medicare and social security as we have with bipartisan proposals that

are in legislative form published for the public to view on our website. and we'll move forward on tax reform. one that will help grow our economy, create jobs, and help address our debt crisis by a stronger, more vibrant economy that will provide opportunity for individuals to get work, increase their wages, and provide for themselves and their families. i hoach that democrats will join me in these efforts. -- i hope that democrats will join me in these efforts. i believe it's only through a combination of those policies that can we really get to the true solutions to this very significant problem facing our country. so while this is a short-term solution to prevent what i think is essential that we do prevent, a default, it's not enough. and as i said, there's so much

a series of vets beginning at 1:45 eastern and you can col follow that and debate leading up to it on our companion network, c-span 2. a bit more now on the debt -- ex intelligence, -- extension. a discussion from this morning's "washington journal." s russell berman, congressional reporter with the hill. talk a little bit more about how it went down yesterday. the clean that vote that was brought to the floor. guest: this is a pretty abrupt decision by speaker boehner yesterday morning. he announced to his conference in a closed-door meeting just about 12 hours after he and his leadership team had unveiled their latest proposal to tie

some strings to a debt ceiling increase. whatever reversed the military pension cuts that that would have reversed military pension cuts enacted in the budget. that did not fly with the congress. they decided they would not be able to pass anything, pass a clean debt ceiling, which the president wants, and get this decision behind them. about 12 hours after that, they had voted, and they were out of town. meeting, you called it abrupt. did he forecast the decision? when you read the newspaper, it seems like even the republicans in the room were thrown that he made the announcement. guest: i spoke to one member coming out of the room, and at the beginning of the conversation it was clear he was still processing it because he

said it seems like both options are still on the table, and then by the end he said he made a on aion, we will vote clean debt ceiling. apparently the speaker got up before the end of the meeting and made the announcement, took .o questions, and that was that clearly, this is not a circumstance the republicans wanted to be in, but the speaker had been lowering expectations couldeks over what they achieve on the debt ceiling. three years ago when he came into power he was saying there needed to be equivalent spending cuts and reforms for any increase in the debt ceiling, and instead that demand has faded away in the face of opposition from president obama and senate democratic leaders. he came to the conclusion that he would try to see if there is they can get behind,

and once that became apparent, he moved quickly. the house is now on a two-week recess. they want to get this off of their plate with the deadline coming up february 27. host: i saw a couple of times on twitter people quoting the saying to colleagues "i am getting this monkey off of your back, and you are not even going to clap?" guest: he was showing his sense of humor. he was singing as he was leaving. alliess way and his point of view, coming out of the shutdown in the near default we saw last fall, which damaged the republican party in the polls, the speaker thought he was saving the party from another potential catastrophe. if they went right up to the brink of the debt ceiling, you

would have the president out there saying they were flirting with default. you could have turmoil in the financial markets. he made the decision early on that this is not how this round of the debt ceiling was going to play out. the difference between him and many members of his conference is many members agreed with him, even though they did not vote for the debt ceiling, but others wanted him to fight. they want to fight every chance they get. host: the fight sounds like it might continue in the senate with ted cruz of texas saying it will not happen by a simple majority, demanding he will take 61 votes. guest: that will force at least five republicans to vote with the democrats. he did say he would not hold it up so they have to delay their recess. he said he was less concerned with the timing of the vote than the fact that they would need

60. it is likely that they would get 60, but what it does do politically is it forces five or six or marble democrats to vote for this bill. -- they could for say to kay hagan, we do not need your vote. reid it sounds like harry needs more than five republicans . he will loose some democrats? guest: it depends. can get is five republicans, he will have to tell members he needs their vote. mitch mcconnell might then be putting pressure on his members to say no more than five of you vote for this so that we can put kay hagan, mark pryor on the hot seat. host: we will go to calls. marion franklin, tennessee. russell berman of "the hill is

onset to take your questions. that feeling vote. caller: nobody ever mentions the cayman islands, or any way to get out of this mess. i have three grown kids. now one is rich. they have good work ethics. everything is skewed in this country. i think ted cruz is a very dangerous person, and i am glad did what he did. i think he is a human being and a lot of them are real wackos. that is all i have to say. host: all right, mary. replace a petition to the speaker, replacespeaker boehner.com. what do you make of those efforts?

guest: a lot of conservative groups are angry at the speaker, and they are raising money. yesterday,members even though a vast majority of republicans voted against this bill, they sympathize with speaker boehner. they realize he was in a difficult position and they realize it was a their fault they could not put something forward. they could not agree. it was the division within their conference and not necessarily him that caused this. right now i do not see any movement afoot within the republican conference to oust him, but there is skepticism about whether he will seek to remain in power in 2015. host: this is an effective fundraising tool for club for growth. guest: this is what you hear

republicans saying. this is what speaker bader was arguing when he -- speaker boehner was arguing when he took groups,age and other accusing them of going after republicans instead of democrats. war, essentially, between the establishment and the grassroots that has been bubbling up. host: ron on twitter says this republicans"five you need only three. grandpa, mccain, are already in -- graham, mccain, are already in obama's pocket. george. knoxville, tennessee. independent caller. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i would just like to say that -- hello?

host: we are listening, george. caller: i guess there is a delay. i am watching on television, but muted. i fully agree with what boehner did. he tried to essentially save the 2014 election for republicans. independent, im am horribly disappointed with the performance of harry reid, nancy pelosi, and obama. host: what about their performance specifically? caller: first of all, obama has been untruthful. this click around him writing speeches that he is on the internet -- not internet, his teleprompter. i am almost convinced they want to destroy this country. the policies they have implemented.

host: george, i will leave it there. it's go back to russell berman comments that the speaker was trying to save the party for the 2014 elections. prognosticators inc. the house is safe going forward in november -- they think the house is safe going forward in november, but another thing that could put it at risk if a shutdown or default. the polls after the october shutdown were clear that most voters blamed republicans. they were saved because they went into the flawed implementation of the health care law, and the polls went in the other direction. if they do not screw it up, is the thinking, they will keep the house and boehner is thinking let's not mess this up. let's make it about the president, obamacare. host: on twitter -- it sounds

like congress and obama has no idea how to fix the debt -- wall street polls are strings, bankers run america not. mike. republican caller. there is no such thing as conservative in this country. it is disgusting, political gamesmanship. capitol hill is a bunch of cowards. it takes guts to make cuts, and nobody seems to have the guts, including the lead coward john boehner. you cannot run your household incomes and that, and they are trying to run this government in constant debt. it takes guts. nobody seems to have the guts except for a few people like rand paul and ted cruz, and thank god for those people. they could possibly say this country. host: russell berman. guest: you see this expressed a

lot on the right. one example of that frustration is look at the military pension cuts that they may -- $6 billion, which is not a lot of money these days, over 10 years. they made that in the budget agreement paul ryan worked out with patty murray. it was unpopular. everybody wants to support veterans. even though it was not included in the debt ceiling, both the house and senate have passed legislation to reverse it. if they can find agreement on how to pay for it, they will get rid of it. see "the wall street journal" editorial page and others on the right criticizing them because this was finally something from at least a start spending, entitlement which is something speaker boehner and a lot of republicans say they want to do, and two months after putting it into place, they are starting to

reverse it, showing how difficult it is. if they cannot do $6 billion, how can they do $2 trillion with $3 trillion? tot: the speaker wanted attach to the debt ceiling. mark pryor said what? guest: he is in a difficult position. he wants to vote against raising the debt ceiling, a popular position in arkansas, but he also does not want to vote against veterans. it, wheneverouch the details are, if you vote against reversing a cut for military pensions, you will be tagged as voting against the troops, veterans. that is the view that he expressed. that is part of the reason why you saw not enough support for that bill in the house republican conference. host: what will you be watching

when they begin this debate in the senate today? guest: it will be interesting how many republicans do vote for this. you would expect that the minimum number would, so do the vulnerable democrats have to put up the numbers to increase the debt ceiling? there is not much we will likely see get done this year in washington given the divide between the parties, so we are turning our attention already to the elections, and we will look at this vote unfortunately in the political context. host: jim on twitter says i would like to see obama come forward and say thank you, now lets start reducing spending and get a handle on this, but i will never happen. ron in pittsburgh, democratic caller. caller: the republicans in the gop -- we have heard all these people in the air say they want to get the debt under control. really, they want to regain control of the government. they do not want to get control

of the spending. that is a ruse. if they did, they would not let an unfunded war of $800 billion under bush's watch go on. you did not hear a peep out of them. these are just the ingenuous things they are saying to get into office. host: russell berman, what do you think -- any action on the debt this year? guest: judging on this vote, when the republicans essentially surrendered, short of some other economic development that would force their hand, they've passed their budget, there is no threat of a shutdown for the next year or two we will, and this bill, if it passes the senate would take that off the table until march, 2015. host: that says the debt ceiling is an inversion of what we need -- keep the government open, send congress home, save the money. new york. independent.

caller: i was wondering if they would get to the extension of unemployment since they are going on vacation for a couple of weeks. do they understand that we have to eat? guest: senate democrats have tried a couple of times right now, and they may try again, but i am not sure if they will be able to try before they get out of town. they tried and failed to extend employment on insurance, -- insurance, and speaker cost you -- house speaker john boehner has made no attempt. host: ralph. posturing gets irritating. they just passed a farm bill that supports agricultural business and it will be $1 trillion over the next 10 years. jerks thathe same have the nerve to sit there and

breaks fors for -- hedge fund managers that make $10 million a year. this will be capital gains now and they knock it down to 15%. i am an investor. when i worked as an engineer, i paid 35% in taxes, and the first year i made $1 million, i ended up paying 15%, plus the d.c. tax, which is another 6% or numeral seven percent. making 10 times as much money, i paid half of the taxes. there is something wrong with us. we can fix this. we need to rhetoric to stop and people to get serious. host: russell berman. guest: that is a view you hear on the right and the left in terms of the unfairness of the tax code. the president talked about making the wealthy pay their fair share, and we might see it more in the context of tax

reform that republicans are talking about where they want to lower the rates overall, but fix the loopholes in the tax code so that the wealthy who should be 35%,g a set rate of 30%, are not able to use all of these deductions to lower that, and end up paying less than as president obama likes to say, warren buffett's secretary. host: there is this headline in "the wall street journal" this morning. roseys farmers wealth dramatically thanks to rising global demand for grains and increased federal mandate for corn-based ethanol production. let's go to michael in kansas city. democratic caller. hi, michael.

caller: how are you doing? host: good morning. caller: obama in a written all of this debt. -- inherited all of this debt. way the system is. people need to realize it is common sense, you know? there are people out there hurting and doing without. we are the ones paying these people to do this job and they i'm doing a fairly. host: russell berman. view: certainly that is a that you see a lot of frustration with congress. their approval rating is 12% according to the latest poll come and that is not the lowest they have been in the last year or so -- poll, and that is the lowest they have been in the last year or so. you want to see progress on cutting spending, tax reform,

immigration reform, and a lot of that is hung up in these daily battles heard host: don -- battles. host: don is next. ohio. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to state to facts that are always missing from the budget debate and that is not raising the debt ceiling is actually an automatic balanced budget, and immediate balanced budget, and the other one is that not raising the debt ceiling will not default on the debt. i believe by law they have to service the debt first, and what they have to cut it pet projects, waste, unnecessary programs and employees. i really think that anybody that debt is raise the actually not -- and they say they are for a balanced budget. i think it is a complete contradiction. host: ok.

guest: that is something you hear on the right as well. if they did not raise the debt ceiling and the treasury prioritized trading -- payments, which conservatives want them to do, the first service would be to pay the debt, interest on the debt, and if you got rid of a lot of the waste, that would take you one day or two, and then you would have to start cutting social security payments or medicare payments. if you do not raise the debt ceiling, the thinking is you could survive for a few days, but then you would have to start really shutting down the machinery of the federal government, and not just federal employees, but also the benefits that go to the people. so, that is why economists, if you are asking them about this, they are all unanimous in saying they do need to raise the debt ceiling, and that it would be a catastrophe, mostly because the financial markets would crash, if they did not.

making thatyellen same argument yesterday when she was testifying for the first time since becoming chairman of the federal reserve. we covered that here on c-span. if you missed that, go to c-span.org. she will be back on the senate side testifying about the state of the economy and her role as chairman. you'll have coverage of that on c-span.org. "if somebodysaying has been unemployed for two years, they must either move or change careers. enough is enough. you cannot pay for no work forever. paul. new york. republican caller. caller: how are you doing? i spent four years in iraq. i just got out. i was working. the unemployment extension -- we went over there fighting for you people, the republicans. i'm a republican, and i'm thinking about changing to

democrat because we did things for the people here, and they cannot help us out. i have three kids and, you know, it is hard. republicans do not care about us when we are republicans. you know, it is like we have to do something about this. i am thinking about going back to democrat, and i think the republicans that are on unemployment should go back to democrat. it is something that we have to do. host: ok. russell berman, we talked about whether or not they would extend these. if they do not do it before they leave, does it come back to the floor? guest: it is hard to see how it does because it has been almost one month and a half that they have lapsed. they are on recess for two weeks. it will be two months. they want to move onto other

issues. the senate wants to hold votes on raising the minimum wage. the democrats want to keep focusing on this. they want to see if there is a way to extend long-term unemployment insurance benefits, and they also want to make it a political issue. he raises an interesting point because this has become another partisan divide between democrats i want to extend this and republicans that do not, but there are unemployed republicans and unemployed democrats, so this issue on the level of affecting everyday people cuts across both parties. times"the washington other issues before congress, as this article.

personal electronic items during takeoff and landing. times" "the washington this morning. carol. ander: i wanted to know, greta, i was listening last week when you were not there, and this caller said you were the worst correspondent that c-span has, and i disagree with that because to me, you know, you do not just sit and let a person say something without asking a question. to me, it is like everybody knows what is the truth, but they will not question it, like ms. marsha blackburn was on there saying why she did not vote for the debt ceiling. to sit there and say you do not want to pay your bills because you will not put something on the bill that would continue to

bring people down, for the life of me, i do not understand why againstare against -- our own best interest, be it republican or democrat. it seems like we are so filled with hate in our heart that we do not even want what is best for us. most of the medicare people in the tea party, they are older people that hate other people getting the help. ok?se, just bear with me, i sit here and i listen to c-span, and sometimes you all make a lot of sense, but sometimes if you have a democrat and a republican on at the same bee, so both persons could presented with a question so we could hear both answers, and we have to know what is best for our own good. this is not best for us. host: carol, we got your point. russell berman, what about the

impact of the vote -- the 199 republicans that voted not to on 2014e debt ceiling and independent voters because nancye this tweet from pelosi -- the house voted to lift the debt ceiling, 7199 .ouse republicans voted -- sadly, 199 house republicans voted. argue the democrats will that this is a risky vote the republicans took, that it risked default, but republicans have tried to make this about the debt, saying democrats are voting for more debt without doing anything about it, and the debate over whether the debt ceiling is about future debt because it allows the government to continue borrowing -- why they are borrowing the money? because of spending congress has already authorized. it goes back and forth. i think both parties like to

make a campaign ad out of this argument, and they feel confident they can win voters that way. boring file clerk says having a crisis is good for the government. it gives them an excuse to look as if they are doing something. john. florida. independent caller. debt-to-gdp is 75%. in 1976, andas this country built europe up with the marshall plan. i'm tired of this -- these congressmen and senators saying the grandchildren will pay for it. who paid for it in 1946? our grandchildren paid for it. we thought a lot to go, and let's rebuild this country up. thank you. guest: that came with a high cost as it was the result of the world war.

we have had two limited wars in the last 10 years that has resulted in the debt everybody is complaining about. you could clearly see the cost of were, frankly. bob. baton rouge, louisiana, on our line for republicans. good morning, bob. caller: good morning. how are you? doing well. welcome to the conversation. caller: i see people arguing over the debt ceiling and that bill. -- the debt bill. the people are going to take care of this, not the media, not the politicians -- the people. outby may 16, you will find that the people are going to take care of it because you in the media do not ever say

, and the politicians will not do anything, so it is up to the people, and the people are going to take care of it. host: ok, bob. james in jersey city, new jersey. democratic caller. caller: yeah. they're about to go on vacation, go back home, like the last caller said people have to be. they are always concerned about the military, and i understand that help protect the country and everything, but people right here at home right now are starving, going through a lot of problems. there are all kinds of situations, and they are worrying about the military. if i am right, the cuts for the military do not even start until 2015. why are we discussing that right now. it is something we could do with down the line.

they do not start until 2015, if i am correct. host: mr. russell berman? a concernt speaks to that has been raised by both parties -- they should be doing something more directly about jobs now. democrats are talking about unemployment insurance benefits. republicans, their argument is if you go after the health care law, it is raining in the economy. there are also conservatives on the right in the house republican conference that one the party to have a jobs -- want the party to have a jobs agenda that affects a little bit more what he is talking about, everyday concerns in an economy that is still recovering from a recession. host: tony. sun valley, california. independent. theer: if we go back to 2010 budget deal, we came out with the super committee, and right before that obama was proposing a deal where over $3

trillion in just cuts -- the republicans said no. so, the public and said no taxes, he wanted some rick -- republicans said no because he wanted some taxes, revenue. the guy that called democrats communists and republicans liberals, and nobody has the guts to do cuts -- i agree. toody has guts to do cuts things that people like like medicare, social security, things like that, but one obama wanted to make cuts, they said no. when bush raised medicare costs by passing a prescription drug benefit that was not paid for, thing onid a god dam the right, so i am not sure how people live with this fallacy and do not live with the reality of things. thank you very much. guest: the core divide -- he

mentions that the president offered a significant amount of cuts, but that was on the condition that republicans agreed to increase revenue, which they see as tax increases no matter which way you can't it, and that we fast-forward to the fiscal deal of 2012 where the president did get a deal that was entirely tax increases, so republicans say the president has gotten his tax increases and any deals would be cuts to the entitlement programs over the long haul. the president, mostly because the democrats are not going to support him on this, has said no deal. berman.ssell the next guest coming up is luis gutierrez. before that, let me squeeze in the last call for you. linda. stanley, new york. republican caller. caller: hello. how are you this morning? i have heard a lot of people

talking about unemployment benefits. republicans and i want to give them their unemployment -- well, that is not true because there was a senator that put a bill on the floor to cut tax credits for you legal immigrants so that they could extend -- illegal immigrants so that they could extend unemployment benefits, and all democrats voted against that. i wanted to get that straight. thank you. guest: i am not sure which bills she is referring to. there has been a republican, dean heller, who has been working on an extension of unemployment benefits. he is from nevada, which has a high unemployment rate. anything that involves immigration at this point, which is another contentious issue, is probably not going to fly, and the democrats position is unemployment insurance benefits should be extended no matter what. they are willing to talk about

>> the senate will take up that house passed debt limit bill in just over a half-hour, about 1:45 eastern. follow that on c-span2. the house is out legislatively until tuesday, february 28. the democrats begin their issues retreat later this afternoon on maryland's eastern shore. minority leader, nancy pelosi, will brief reporters about that gathering. we'll have it for you live at 6:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. news from washington today that israeli prime minister, bedgemin netanyahu, plans to visit the white house next month. the associated press says the white house announced the march 3 visit and would discuss middle east peace, iran's nuclear program, and other regional issues. the plrm has also been an outspoken critic of u.s. efforts to curb iran's program. kerry is trying to broker a middle east peace deal that would establish an independent palestinian state alongside israel. the a.p. says the white house in a statement said that

netanyahu's visit is, quote, a demonstration of the deep and enduring bonds between the u.s. and israel and close consultations on a range of security issues that's from the associated press. the visit, march 3. >> the context here is that lee enjoys a reputation in the modern day as someone who counseled acceptance and submission and resignation to the situation. and that is always -- has always struck me as -- it's sort of a theory that doesn't add up in the sense that we know lee was the most prestigious man in the south. we are told he counseled submission, we know in the end the south didn't submit to the political will of the north. southerners, ex-con fed rats, quickly began to contest the northern understanding of the meaning of the peace and northern plans for reconstruction. it contested them through political means and extra legal means and violent means. and what i found is that in the eyes of confederates, lee would

not assemble -- a symbol of submission. he was a symbol of unbowed pride and a kind of measured defiance. >> rethinking grant and lee at appomattox. saturday night at 10:00 eastern, and sunday more at 11:00, part after three-day presidents' day weekend on c-span3's american istory tv. >> although hitries of the vietnam era war might make only passing reference to the f-100, it's not because they weren't there in numbers. perhaps not as glamorous as other planes, their contribution to the war effort was irreplaceable. >> beautiful. absolutely beautiful. it just seems so familiar to actually sit here.

>> you're going to have to come see it. >> absolutely. >> from my personal ties, this was the airplane i flew in vietnam, this very tail number of the of the 226 combat missions i flew, i flew about 180 missions in this airplane. it's my tie train yum mistress -- titanium mistress. it's what brought me home at times when it probably shouldn't have. when i abused it. when i did things in order to survive, punished it, yet it held together. it is an airplane that i have such strong feelings for. there's no way i couldn't bring it home. if i could. interesting story, i had a painting done by an aviation artist to paint my airplane in its battle gash, he asked me if i knew what happened to it, i said no, i didn't. he knew somebody who did. when i couldn't tacted that person he told me where it was in massachusetts and that got the ball rolling. i said if there's any way we can bring that airplane in out of

the cold and present it to our museum patrons in the combat form that it was, that would be my goal in life. that's what we are working towards. >> this weekend, a look behind the history and litary life of macon, georgia, including a stop at the aviation museum at rob bins air force base, saturday at noon on c-span2, and sunday at 5:00 p.m. on c-span3. >> south carolina senator tim scott was one of the featured speakers monday at the heritage foundation's conservative policy summit. he addressed education policy and the importance of school choice programs after his opening remarks, the senator participated in a discussion with panelists on that topic. >> maybe one of the most destructive myths of liberalism that the government understands a child's needs better than his or her parents do.

american citizens pay taxes to fund an education system that fails millions of students each year. no one disputes that a true education is the antidote to some of the most serious problems playinging the under privileged -- plaguing the underprivileged youth of this country. what we dispute with the support of evidence is the educational process can be squeezed into a one-size-fits-all national mold. different kids have different needs and parents have should a say in a system they pay to support. at a time when the media has exploited the cause of social inequality at the behest of president obama, senator tim scott offers us a real way to combat the disadvantages many americans face. the choice will empower parents to choose the educational paths that best suit the unrepeatable qualities of their children. it provides poor, disabled, and military families with scholarships to attend schools of their choice. true equal opportunity begins at the ground floor. when parents leave the conversation about how their tax dollars are spent, the educational system can be revitalized from the perspective

of their customer. i should note that our next senator is in my mind the best senator we have had from south carolina in the last 10 years. that may get me in trouble here at the heritage foundation for saying, but i'm honored to introduce our next speaker leading the charge on behalf of these american families, senator tim scott. [applause] >> i guess my first question to the audience is, mike, where's senator demint from? i was wondering, personally. there's a line of separation between the two of you guys. it is good to be with you-all, thank you very much for the opportunity to talk about my choice side and talk about an issue to me that is really about freedom. the power of choice to me in education is truly the power of freedom. i think to myself when i go to church on sundays, a friend of mine, guy named scott and his wife, have a beautiful little girl.

she was born with down syndrome. when i see them at church on sundays, i often think to myself about what we are doing in the education space to make sure every person has the opportunity to maximize their potential. then i read a story about a little girl named rachel lewis, and i connected the dots to my friend scott and little rachel lewis. rachel lewis also was born with down syndrome. and her parents fought to get her into the right school and they successfully were able to get in her school and she did well. then they had to move. when they moved the new school system simply was not very welcoming to rachel. so her parents fought for a year to give rachel the same mainstream opportunity we want for every kid. unfortunately, they to fight and fight and fight. a little over a year later, they

were able to get rachel back in a mainstream classroom. unfortunately, what they realized along the way was that they were going to now ask the system that fought to keep her out of these mainstream classes to now educate little rachel. that's a tall order. that's a tough task. so they decided to send rachel to a different school. a school called hidden treasure, where rachel could realize her potential. now rachel's about 20 years old. she has graduated from high school. she doesn't have a job, she has two jobs. and i look around my church and i see my friends and i say to myself, perhaps the choice act will be the path to see more kids realize more of their potential. i certainly believe it's true here in d.c. as well, i think through the opportunity

component of the choice act, creating open opportunity for individuals and communities through education. i think about the dismal numbers here in the d.c. area. so many kids trapped in failing schools. trying to find a way out. as a matter of fact they are trying so hard that there are 2 2,000 students on waiting lists. 15 schools closed. and yet with a graduation of 56%, there is some conflict, some challenge to the notion that we should provide more opportunity scholarships to more kids. let me explain how that works. if you're -- how many of you guys would like to have better outcomes for less money? please raise your hands. now, would you rather pay $20,000 for 56% high school graduation rate, or if i gave you door number two, would you

97% $8,500, for a graduation rate? how many go with the 97%? i just want to make sure everybody is listening. where are you from, sir? i'll come back to you in a little bit. and that is the difference here with the d.c. opportunity scholarship. we are talking about the 6,000 kids over the last 10 years who finished school here in the d.c. area, have a 97% graduation rate. but more importantly 91% of those students go on to a two-year or four-year college. it is a fact, choice, the power of choice is the power of freedom. we ought to take a serious look at the outcome of education right here at place where we uld have a true challenge,

$20,000 for 56% of the kids to be able to go on to a two-year four-year education, or $8,500 where the kids, 97 out of 100 times graduate. 91 out of 100 times goes on to get a two-year or four-year education. and 94 out of 100 times the parents are completely satisfied with their education. these are remarkable numbers. i will tell you as i close here that as a kid growing up who did not do well in school, my story's been told a couple times, but just to refresh your memory, i was that kid. 98% of those kids that come from underperforming schools. too many of those kids, 86% of the kids are african-american, 14% are hispanic.

too often we write off these kids as at-risk kids that will never perform. i would rather have seen the results of the 6,000 kids that have gone through the opportunity scholarship, i would rather call the kids, high potential children with a great future, an amazing platform, and paths that are filled with prosperity. because we know if you look at the results of education, we can see the results of employment. let me finalize with this. as we study the numbers, and we have this great debate on issues over the next at least nine or 10 months before an election, i'd like to first have that debate even after the election, the other side would like to participate, i'll show up anywhere, any time, any day, to have that debate because what we are talking about is the quality of life that americans will experience for a long time to come. so do you have a college

education, your unemployment rate is under 4% today. if you graduate from high school it's around 7.7%. but those who do not graduate from high school, which in my county back at home in south carolina, 56% of african-american males aren't finishing high school. the unemployment rate is 10%. here's where the rubber meets the road, after age 25 those that have not graduated from high school, only 50% of them are actually in the labor force. so think about that 10% unemployment rate, compounded by the fact that only half are in the work force. if you want to have a serious debate about people, let's have a debate about the foundation on which they stand. let's have a serious debate not about how to make more republicans or make more democrats, or have a political

conversation. i want to have a conversation about the future of our country. and the face of our education. to the extent that we provide equal access to the best education system in the world, spending over $600 billion collectively with the states, we could have a serious conversation about prosperity. i hope that we have that debate for a lot longer than a year. i will tell you that having had the privilege of a life that was going down the wrong direction, have you ever noticed that you always drift in the wrong direction? all drifting does not go in the right direction. i tried it. i'll just tell you that the results of drifting is bad. the results of focus is good. i look forward to having an opportunity to talk about the issue of education further with the brilliant panelists that will accompany me. god bless you. thank you. [applause]

>> panel come by an unfair advantage during the senator's pop quiz, derek morgan, our head of economic policy was over there, just on the numbers questions i could see if your hand went up or not. we have a great panel joining us. lindsay burke is the skillman fellow in educational policy here at the heritage found aid. juan williams is someone who needs no introduction other than to say we are grateful at heritage for the many ways he's engaged with us. thank you both, and juan if i could start with you. could you talk about why this is such an important issue for you personally over the years? >> this is a d.c. opportunity act and i think it's simple to say i live in d.c. and living here i have paid for my three children to go through schools because the public schools were such a disaster. and as a parent i did not feel

comfortable in sending my children to those schools. it's a pretty simple and direct answer to the question. but i would also put in there this, that i was interviewing, in my role as a journalist, senator scott last week, one of the things he said to me was the ole notion of wanting to create change in a system that's failing children. that if he is that child that wants a good opportunity, wants an education, he would want someone, some politician, somebody to stand up and say this is an urgent need right now. that's what senator scott said to me. and without being playful about the fact that you can attest you said it, i think that's exactly what we have at stake right now is a need to blow up a dysfunctional system. that's why i would back the use of any system, but in specific the one at hand, charter schools, vouchers, under the umbrella of school choice, we were talking about other

mechanisms, tax credits and the like. but anything that would much in the way that you think of star wars and may the force be with you, get in there and say we have an urgent problem for every child in the public school structure to blow up a failing system and give that chance right now an opportunity to succeed. >> lindsay, many of us here in d.c. know about the d.c. opportunity scholarship program. we know the success stories. what are some of the success stories around the country that we should also know about? >> we talk a lot about d.c. it's right here in our back beyond a reasonable doubt -- backyard, which makes it a same the president has tried to mention it every year to zero out funding. it's right in his backyard. that was great overview, senator scott, of all the successes we have produced. we have worked with families over the years. there's some wonderful graduate of the program, jordan, she's

the first student who went through the d.c. opportunity scholarship program, went on to graduate college, and is now living in japan teaching english. we have all of these wonderful stories that have come out of the d.c. opportunity scholarship program. but we are seeing that. you're right, replicated across the country, it's not just d.c. we are seeing it in places like arizona. arizona has engaged in what we are calling school choice 2.0, where they are moving beyond the worthwhile goal of providing vouchers to giving parents control of every single penny that is their child's educational allocation. in arizona a parent can receive 90% of what the state would have spent on the child in the public system, it goes right on to a restricted use debit card. parents can pay for private school tuition, online learning, special education services, educational therapies, curricula, textbooks. they can direct every single dollar of their child's education funding.

that has empowered parents in a new-found way. they can roll over unused dollars from year to year. you have parents thinking about opportunity cost, are they getting a good value for the money that's spent? they can roll it into a college savings account. this is just massive innovation in terms of school choice policy. examples like that in arizona and places like louisiana, they have gone beyond just school choice to course choice. parents are choosing among courses and teachers, not just among schools. the states are really showing what they are able to do in terms of school choice policy. i think it's really exciting to think about that policy and the future of it. >> just to follow up, keeping decisionmaking as close to the family and is something that's important. we call it federalism here at the heritage foundation. federal education financing is only 10% of the total financing. can you talk about senator scott's legislation and why it is such an important role for federal law makeers? >> that's a great point you make. federal education financing really is just 10% of all

financing. so the federal government, you can think about them, sort of being a 10% stakeholder in terms of what we spend, $600 billion you mention we spend a year, 10% is taxpayer money spent through federal programs. the remaining 90% is spent at the state and local level. it's not just a matter of federalism, which is important to guide policymaking, but it's a matter of practically speaking where the dollars are. when we see school choice programs move forward, and whether we see state and local policymakers work to craft them, it's important to keep that in mind. where the dollars are you want the parent to have control over that funding. you're right, all of the money is at the state and local level and that's why we want to see those at the state and local level. >> go to the audience for questions. inaudible]

>> how do you confront that special ed group? >> it's an interesting point. again i come back to -- i was interviewing senator scott for a piece i wrote for "the hill" that came out today. we were talking in general terms about how you impress upon people the importance of school choice so that you can get public support for this. and in specific, minority communities. and the treacherous thinking behind this journalist talking to this public official was, in fact, that the unions really have a stranglehold in terms of minority parents, and i have long thought why is it that poor minority parents aren't out in the streets marching and screaming bloody murder given what happens to their children in public schools?

well, the reality is, i think, that the unions have convinced them that this is a source of jobs and patronage and contracts, and the focus on the child and the education of the child has been lost. and so instead of focusing on the failure to educate the child and give the child the opportunity and move beyond, the focus is on, oh, this is a source of jobs and opportunity for the adults in this community. and that's where the unions come in. that's why i think the unions have this stranglehold as i described it, to you. now senator scott, sitting here, don't know why i'm talking for him, senator scott said to me -- >> you have done a fine job so far. >> but senator scott's position is if you can get the message out, and he cited some of his numbers in his speech, here's what you can get for your dollar, and here's why you

should be controlling that dollar as a parent as opposed to the bureaucracy and the government, that then you would start to shift parents. that -- shift opinions. that parents would see very clearly it's in their self-interest to try something else. door number two, i believe? >> yes, sir. >> there we go. i was paying attention. >> exact quote. >> that's a rare thing for us. >> i would like to go back on what you said. too often we have an education system that seems to be designed for adults and not for kids. so we should ask ourselves the question, those adults who care most about the kids are called parents. teachers as well. the question we have to ask ourselves, the success of some schools back at home, meeting street academy has two locations, one in the low country and one in the upstate. the parents are immersed in the education responsibilities of their kids. it's producing amazing results. when i have trafflet the country

whether cleveland or wisconsin looking at either choice programs or charter school programs, what i find is that part of that success it's not figuring out how to go from $600 billion to $700 billion, it's how to get parents intimately involved on a daily basis or weekly basis in the education decisions for their kids and how to make sure they partner with the teachers. any system that doesn't start with the kid and work their way out is a system that's bound to fail at the objective of producing a product that is competitive in a global society, a global world. where the economic factors are driving companies to other places. if we had a conversation specifically about stem and the impact that stem education will have on america's competitive position globally, it's a very interesting and provocative conversation that we could have. >> if i could just add, too, from a teacher's perspective, this is liberating, right? the fact you are now empowering

families and not just funding school system. the fact that that is an exy tension threat to the union power. this is part of the reason why you see in states that shift from being a force to right to work state a decline in union membership when teachers are given a choice. this is sort of choice from both ends of the spectrum. choice for teachers, choice for students. i should add, too, senator scott's proposal is important because it takes that 10%, that 90-10 share we were talking about and it awill yous that 10% to be portable. if the state wants to take the money designated for children with special needs and allow parnse take that to a private school of choice, they are able to do that much monty we are spending at the federal level, that 10% share, it becomes much more flexible and student centered. it >> one of the biggest arguments against school choice is the lack of funding that -- in the

public schools and that funding dries up. that's the detriment of all the kids staying in public schools. lindsay, you said about the program in arizona and louisiana, how do they -- where do they find this lack of funding? >> a few things on that. we have a growing body of empirical evidence that shows not only does school choice benefit the students who receive a voucher or scholarship to attend a private school that their parents have chosen, but the public system improves as well. we often talk about school choice being a rising tide that lifts all boats. that competitive pressure, personally i think has been lacking from the public system for decades now, that competitive pressure, when parents actually have a right of exit out of a school that's not meeting the needs of their child, has really produced some beautiful results for the students who decide to remain in the public system as well. if you look at florida, they have a large scholarship program for children with special needs. not only do the children who receive the scholarship

statistically, significantly improved results in terms of academic achievement, so did their peers who chose to stay in the public system. i think as we are looking through school choice, our default position should be that everyone makes a choice when they enter the system. if that happens to be your local public school, that's great if it's meeting your needs. but public school should not have the virtue of receiving dollars and students no matter how poorly they are pr forming. that competitive -- they are performing. that competitive aspect is something that will be replicated and we'll see improvements. >> the key here, tying in something you heard from lindsay and senator scott is you are from my perspective empowering parents. you are believing in the idea that the parent loves, cares for that child and believes in that child's potential. however limited that potential might be, but believes the child has potential. and that the parent is going to make the wise choice for their child. and i think that's the key here.

empowering parents. >> i'll add one other thing on that, too. school choice program design, if you look at arizona, which i mention add little while ago, with their savings account program, parents get 90% of that money. 10% remains with the school system. so for things like fixed overhead cost, the public schools currently dealing with, arizona has taken that into consideration. as states are crafting school choice programs, they are thinking about things like overhead costs. you also hear opponents spring up. >> the other thing i'd add to that is if you think about the number of schools that are closing in school districts across the country, and if we are talking about a per pupil count, per school count let's look at d.c. specifically, 15 schools closed. that's going to put amazing pressure for those kids from those 15 schools to go to other schools, right? so the real question is if you do the math, figure it out, the number of schools that are closing, the number of students being transferred, the number of

costs being transferred, why wouldn't you have the component in there where part of that transfer ability, transfer opportunity goes to school choice opportunity or component as opposed to simply saying that a school -- the students left behind, what's there for them? actually, a lot of the schools are closing. and if that's happening, it's not everywhere, but happening somewhere, perhaps here's an opportunity for us to have a discussion about those resources in a pool. if we are thinking about senator alexander and myself co-sponsored a bill that he wrote where you take $22 billion out of a $600 billion fund, we are talking 4%, 3.5%, can we have an experiment, will you please let us have an experiment with 4% of the money to see if we can be competitive with finland and asian countries that are top one through five? that's what i'm asking in some of the places where we are seeing the least performance,

owest performance. >> i wonder, to an extent are you considering innovation such as the kahn academy and 3,000 course modules which are being used in the oakland system now and east palo aalto, i think, amongst other places, to very good effect. and especially with low achieving individuals who just were bored to death and now they can proceed at their own speed and they even become tutors. there's a book called "one world schoolhouse." the other comment i wanted to make is, what about drug-free of drug nd school-free paraphernalia. vaporizers are now being used on the way to school in buses with marijuana in them. and kids are getting high and

are coming to school high. can something like that consideration for these kinds of things be included in what you're doing? >> i notice you were looking at juan for the second question. i'll leave that for him. the first you were looking at me. i'll tell you that the -- it was interesting you asked that question. last night i was on the kahn academy.org website. i can't figure out this d.c. math. i'm not sure why it is i'm confused. we are spending more money than we are taking in. it doesn't seem logical to me. i looked at their microeconomic courses. and it will walk you through what seems to be adam smith's perspective on the economy. i'm not sure why i got lost. think about what we are looking at 10 years from now and when we look back in year 2024 at education as we know it today. newt gingrich has a book called

"break out"about this education model. you can go online and get a pretty strong education almost for free. $600-plus ending billion trying to provide a world class education and it's at best mediocre, too often, and we are having places online where you can get a pretty competitive education if you have the time to invest when you get off from work. so i think the next innovation of education and the competition to come is how the internet and virtual schools will start replacing and/or competing with this notion we have today of education. so on the second part of that question on using vaporizers or something for something, i'm going to let you deal with that something. >> given where you work i hought you might be an expert.

>> i left the house of representatives. now i'm a senator. i don't know anything about that drug paraphernalia. it was a lateral move the last time i checked. >> i'm so glad you brought up kahn academy. i think it's an amazing innovation. and i do think it will herald in a revolution. not just kahn academy, but there are so many online options now. whether it's the higher ed level. the higher ed level, i think we'll hear more about this this afternoon, you have harvard and m.i.t. that are coming together to form edex, which provide free online coirs. these are some of the most august institutions in the world providing these options for free. you do have some high quality options that parents have to pay for, but this is where financing mechanisms like ed savings accounts become so important. or an option in louisiana to go

from not only school to school, but course to course. so when we talk about these options, these are in essence just the financing mechanism that allow parents to access all of these options. while kahn academy is free, it does allow them to access other online learning options. one line that i love that kahn says the one world schoolhouse, he said right now learning is variable and time is fixed. we need to flip that equation so learning is fixed and time is variable. and i think that's what online learning and school choice help us to do. it's this mass custom scation of learning that is student centric and ensures a student masters a concept before they move on. so that learning piece is fixed not variable for students. one other thing on that, too, i think on the homeschooling front, imagine what this could do for homeschooling. a parent now being equipped with kahn academy, this 3,000 lessons in economics or math, or d.c.

math whatever it might be. fuzzy math, right. these parents now equipped with a world of knowledge maybe being even more confident to say, you know what, maybe i will take on the challenge of homeschooling. they are all of these, i think, benefits that could come from this online learning revolution that's at our doorstep. >> senator, can you talk specifically on the choice act, where it stands legislatively and what we can do to help it move forward? >> where it stands legislatively, we put it in january 9 we submitted the bill. i'm not sure if you are aware of the way the senate has been progressing this year. i think there were 1le 0 bills passed by the house that have not seen the light of day. i have heard of the do nothing congress, but it sounds like the do-nothing snafment there is a person you can call, i think it's senator harry reid, would go a long way to helping us have a serious debate on whether or not the bill itself, the choice act, has merit. i'd love to have that debate on

the floor of the senate. i think we could have a robust debate with parents and teachers throughout the country. if we could find a way to get it to a vote. right now it seems to be right behind the other couple hundred bills we haven't taken up so far. >> is there any bipartisan interest you find even if it's not spoken in public? >> there is. i had a great conversation last week with congresswoman sheila jackson lee about the legislation that's heading to her office late last week. and hopefully we'll have an opportunity to have that discussion and perhaps get some co-sponsors that will help us to move through the senate as well. one of the things that's starting to happen i see in the education front is that we are starting to look at the outcome. it's an interesting conversation to have when you're focused on the outcome not intentions. too often we may demonize people's intentions and not have a serious conversation about the outcomes. the more we focus on the outcomes of education, the more i'm realizing there are folks --

they say politics make strange bedfellows, there are folks coming together, ted cruz and sheila jackson lee, coming together and looking at ways to improve the outcome. it's so important to improving the people and this nation will enefit from that debate. >> getting parents more involved in their children's lives and doing it through their education. but if they are involved in that, they are going to start to get more involved in other areas. talking about outcomes the outcome of children graduating, getting jobs, taking care of themselves, not being on welfare, not being involved in drugs and alcohol and all the other things out there and just improving their lives in all these areas. there are going to be a loft side outcomes out of that. >> 100% correct. i will tell you when i was flunking outs of high school as a freshman, i -- out of high

school as a freshman, i flunked out and was on my way to becoming a normal stat in the area where i lived, and my mother, she got pretty serious about my educational outcomes. she loved me a lot. she also believed loved came at the end of a switch which is a southern apparatus of encouragement. she got seriously involved in my education. and my outcome started to change as well. we need parents to catch the kids when they are tilting or getting ready to fall over. i was fortunate, i think there are parents everywhere in this country asking for a life line. . lp me, help myself this does that and i take that seriously. we want to have fun talking about it because too many people are asleep in this part of the conversation. >> just to add, too, not that anyone would condone folks

breaking the law, you often see news stories about parents who risk breaking the law to find a school that's outside of their child's assigned zip code. the extent to which a parent will go to find a quality education for their child, i think, is evident in. so stories we see. one of the great lines that came out from the evaluation of the d.c. opportunity scholarship program conducted by the university of arkansas and the department of ed was that school choice in the d.c. voucher program moved parents from the margins to the centers of their child's academic experience. we see that over and over again in school choice programs throughout the country. the level to which parental involvement is increased as a result of choice. question directed to senator scott, but juan williams can also participate. you alluded to one person controls what gets on the senate

floor. why does senate rules allow that or what can be done about that? >> sir, the more we have tried to force that conversation, the worse the rules have gotten this year. or last year as well. we have seen the nuclear option. we have seen the implosion of the senate as we have known it for the last couple hundred years. progressively getting worse. as far as what we can do about that, sir, the evidence is coming in pretty clearly, there re probably six things specifically we can do about it. one's called north carolina, louisiana, west virginia, south dakota -- they are called elections. we need six more republicans so that we can change the leadership of the senate, which is the shortest answer i'll have today. > i'll leave it at that. >> consequences, unintended

consequences. i'm thinking of people like arizona who take $9,000 and they figure out a way to waste it or -- unintended consequences. this is a good thing for parents in general? what about parents who don't care about their children? how does this affect them? >> let me take a shot at that one. i'll give senator scott time to think. this is a real part of this conversation. in fact lindsay and i were talking before we came out about the justice department suit in ouisiana that's against school choice. and their argument is, of to se, that this is a lower resegregation of schools. what you are doing is allowing the white children to get out of these schools and form some kind

of southern education acad michigan this is a ludicrous suggestion in its context. the minute you look at it you'll discover that the scholarships are limited to low-income children, principally in new orleans, principally black kids. and overwhelmingly districts that are already under the desegregation act. am i right so far? the expert agrees. what -- so that is, again, a danger as you were talking about. i would say another danger is that you have in some cases you have in terms of school choice particularly in terms of charter people talk about, people form charters that are really for some extremist religious group. they have a high rate of closures in some areas. why aren't standards being maintained in that charter school environment? how do you enforce standards in a charter school or even a

voucher environment? how does -- what is the relationship between government funding, which is the it money in the voucher, and wherever that money goes? that's another potential hazard. do these schools take all children? one of the big complaints that comes from the public school supporters is, the charter schools don't have to take kids with bad records or disabled kids or kids that have behavioral problems. we take them all. that's why you get better results out of the charters, vouchers, etc. these are all the negative consequences, and as you said in your question there are some parents who may not be the kind that would line up early in the morning or days before in order to try to get their child into the best possible charter school. they don't care about the kid. are we condemning the child even as we are trying to help the child? because the parents -- parent is

not involved and not going to be involved no matter what we do. i think these are all cheap excuses. here's why. i think that if you right now look at the status quo, you will see an inordinate, to my mind, disgraceful number of children who are being failed by the current system. when you talk about breaking apart this system and giving power to parents, there are people who will point out potential negatives, potential failures, etc. at this point to me the big problem is the status quo. children who are being ill served, and we have evidence in terms of statistics that were cited earlier by senator scott on graduation rates, dropout rates, specifically again in the minority community, but don't walk away from here thinking this is a conversation about those black and hispanic kids. you should check out what's going on with the white kids as well. even in this supposedly wonderful suburban schools, go

compare them to the schools in the other developed western nations in terms of how they compare on stem outcomes, and would you say, oh, my gosh, what's going on with american education at the start of this 21st century? to me what you're looking at is ople who will cite potential stumbles, potential problems along the way, but to my mind the urgent task for us in this moment is to acknowledge the failure of the current system and blow it up. >> there is undeniable risk without any question to anything that we do. perhaps the greatest risk, however, is to maintain the status quo. i was trying to do the math in my head but i didn't get it finished. 50,000 to 70,000 students in the school system, not sure how many in d.c. there's 55,000 in charleston county, we have about four million folks in my state. my county is one of the larger

ones, 50,000 students. think about the opportunity for 50,000 students at the average d.c. price tag of $20,000 per student, versus 50,000 students if we had them enrolled in scholarships, $8,500. the cost of graduation difference of 56% at $20,000, $8,500 getting 97%. think about the difference in folks who go on to get a two-year degree or four-year degree and what that means anything from a manufacturing hub with the great natural gas prices, we see manufacturers coming back to our country, versus what we see if we didn't have this product going through the two-year schools. think about the fact that the unemployment rate is 3% for those with a four-year degree. 10% for those who don't graduate from high school. so we are going to pay an astronomically high number to produce higher unemployment, higher government dependency. or we can pay 40% on the dollar, reduce our unemployment rate,

and reduce our government dependence, as well as improve the likelihood of more businesses, more opportunities in a global economy where the competition is serious without taking us out. >> if i could just add, too, since you mentioned arizona, they have quite good fiscal accountability measures in place there. parents have to submit receipts that show their educational expenditures every quarter to the department of revenue. they don't get their next quarter's disbursement until they submitted those receipts. they have some good fiscal accountability measures in place. yes, you are always going to get a couple of bad apples, i don't think that should be our default position when we think about parents. by and large they are fighting with every breath to get the best possible educational opportunity for their children. i think in arizona part of that you'll see evidence of that just by going online and looking at the yahoo! group, all of the parents in arizona, savings account program, got together organically, got on this yahoo! group, they are going back and

forth talking about what educational options work for their kids. their child has this special need and what's worked well for them and best practices on utilizing their ed savings account. i'm much more optimistic that's the type of outcome we'll see than any sort of proud that might be in the program. -- sort of fraud that mibet in the program. >> question about the current structure, i saw a statistic recently that was startling. it said something like in the last 30 years the number of teachers in the public system has increased at a compounded rate of 1% or 2%, and the number of administrators have compounded at 7%. that's annual compounding. so in other words the administrative and overhead staff has grown dramatically the number of teachers has not. i would -- perhaps your newer methods, options, choice, charter schools could help get at this model program. the second thing i'd say is, don't we need a system where we attract the best teachers, best

people, and reward those teachers and celebrate those teachers, because in my own experience i remember the great teachers i had in school. and recognize how much they helped me over my life. so i think the current system often does not differentiate excellence in teachers from ordinary or less than that. >> when i was in the south carolina state legislature and the statehouse, we had some measures to improve the actual in classroom expenditures versus the overhead. so my state at the time, this is i k in 2008 or 2009, 2009, think the numbers are 44 cents on the dollar went to the classroom. 56 cents on the dollar did not. the national average was around 65 cents on the dollar went to the classroom. so the debate we had, our governor was in the statehouse with me then, she had a piece of

legislation, if i have this correct, that was to take our state average from 4848 cents to 65 cents, and all what that means is $1.6 billion more, i think it was at the time, into the classrooms. so the debate that we have about money really should be a debate about how we use the money. the average education department employee of late makes around $103,000 a year. whereas a teacher makes a whole lot less than that typically. what we ought to have a debate about is where are our priorities starting with the kid and who is closest to the kid and make sure we pay and reward those folks closest to the kid and take a look at how we are using those dollars. the evidence is pretty clear. and i certainly believe in a ground zero up approach to that and having the folks closest to the student helping make those decisions and not me in washington. that is a part of that serious debate we ought to have. >> the federal government has

layered such a bureaucratic compliance burden on the states and local school districts that you can hardly blame them for all of the administrative bloat that they have had to take on over the years just to comply with the department of education's paperwork command, and we have -- demand, and we have seen tremendous administrative bloat. just a couple stats we have seen since 1960's a 7% increase in the number of students enrolled in public schools across the country, but 84% increase in the number teachers andard mrtive staff. if you just -- and administrative staff. if you just look at a teacher, nonicher ratio, in 1960 there were 2.36 teachers for every nonteacher in a classroom. today it's one to one. for every school teacher you see in a district so much of that is that brewer ic compliance burden