perfect way to protect our national security and others would say it's not the best -- the perfect way to protect our civil liberties. i think you can have a tremendous bill that provides for that. we are always interested in seeing what dissent might do, but you are correct. this has been very carefully can -- negotiated here within the house and also with the administration. it will be very important that if the senate does something different, that it is as ranking con your met -- ranking member conyers said, it is better and not just different. we will look forward to working with the senate to reach a final conclusion on what can be put on the president's desk to be signed into law. >> let me get somebody who hasn't asked a question, in the back. >> mr. sensenbrenner, and those who were around for the original patriot act, i'm wondering if you could explain a little bit of the evolution here in congress, from crafting a bill, what happened, and what we seen

in the implant mentation -- implementation of that to this day. >> first, at of the gift as evolutionary as you think. we still try to believe we are protecting the national security. we still know the events that occurred on september 11, 2001, could happen again. and of course, that was written in the close aftermath of that. but it was also carefully crafted and vetted. it has been reauthorized with some changes over that time will stop -- over that time. but nonetheless, the majority of the provisions in that are valid and important. and there's still some is agreement about some of the provisions, but not most of the provisions in that legislation. our trouble here, and i will let jim sensenbrenner address this because he can do so better than i can, but our trouble here is be carefully considered what section 215 should be used for. they used it for purposes different than what i believe

congress intended, and certainly the vote here today reflects that. if that same question were asked back end, you would get the same answer. -- back then, you would get the same answer. >> thank you, bob. when we negotiated out the original patriot act after september 11, 12 thousand one -- 2001, probably the most difficult thing was to get an agreement between house and the senate and bush administration over section 215 and the scope of 215. other members of congress and i have sent letters throughout the year each year over to the justice department requesting information and we put the responses up jointly on the committee's website. until the 2006 amendment to the patriot act and the reauthorization, which put the

term "relevant post quote in -- "relevant" in, there was really not much of a problem with section 215. there was a lot of material that the nsa and the justice department came to through the use of national security letters rather than through 215 five the court warrants. but with the insertion of "relevant" and subsequent five the court determination that relevant meant everything rather than it be a limiting factor, that is when the nsa and the justice department literally went out of control. and i can say that most of us did not know about it until the snowden revelations. we have prevented that from happening in the freedom act by requiring significant policy changes. and this certainly would have been one of them, as the law

would have been as proposed of the time, to be disclosed to the american public. and my opinion is, had this disclosure provision been in the patriot act, we would not be here at this time. mr. snowden would not have become a worldwide figure, because the congress would have taking care of this either through job owning and legislation or both. -- job owning or legislation or both. >> [inaudible] do you see any need to reform the surveillance program like prism? >> there are some reforms to 700 to in this to make sure it cannot be used for the purposes of section 215 was being used for. and some of the provisions will allow for greater transparency with regard to any request for

any type of data across all these different statutes. but we, as has been said earlier, are always open to new ideas that would enhance the civil liberties of americans if they do not significantly jeopardize the security of americans. i don't think there is a specific postal on the table, -- proposal on the table but we are always open to new ideas. >> a number of members of both parties did the -- did decide not to support the bill because they did not think it went far enough. was there enough going on behind the scenes to prevent the falling off of key members? >> that never happened. [laughter] we have, from start to finish, conducted a thorough effort to educate members regarding what the still -- this bill does. the focus of any discussions,

and there were many, i'm sure, by many members -- in my case, and i hope in other cases as well, it was to look at the actual language and what the parameters and ramifications of that are. i will not speak for any member who voted against it, but i will say that this is a major step forward in protecting america's civil liberties, and in ending both data -- bulk data collection by the government. i think that is the salient point here. but for those who want to have more, i would recommend, as i think mr. nadler said earlier, don't make the perfect enemy of the good. and i understand there are differing opinions. there were a few members who voted against the bill because they think it went too far in that direction. that is something that always has to be weighed in the balance.

it is very unusual to get everybody to support everything. but i think we had a very resounding, bipartisan victory with the majority of both republicans and democrats, large majorities of both were publicans and democrats supporting the bill. we had a large group of democrats and republicans who voted for the bill, and we will continue to educate the members and the public about what this accomplishes, because we want it passed by the senate and signed into law. we want to and bulk data collection. it is continuing and flowing, by the minute, by the hour, and this is a major step forward, but there's still more work to be done. we have made an important contribution. now we would like to see the senate act on it properly so we can and data collection. >> could i add, when we noted on the final vote of the freedom act that there were a number of

members that switched their vote from no -- from yes to no, and we think we would have gotten even a larger vote in support of it had they not realized, as most of us did, that it was going to pass overwhelmingly, so they decided to vote a no vote. >> [indiscernible] >> right. >> can you describe to us what happened over the weekend. the language -- [indiscernible] the language was tightened twice.

how did that process occur? >> first of all, you need to ask people who voted no regarding their reasons for voting no. in terms of the process, i can assure you that it is not at all unusual when legislation comes out of committee that concerns expressed by other committees, concerns expressed by other leadership, concerns expressed by national security and law enforcement organizations, concerns expressed by civil liberties organizations, were all heard and carefully considered in making the changes that were made. we felt those changes were necessary in order to make sure that there were not unintended consequences in moving this legislation forward toward becoming law, and we had to address it from that standpoint because the judiciary committee produces legislation.

we do not get to decide when bills come to the floor. and i think the work was done in an expeditious manner, but also in a very thorough manner, and this bill was at the point where it was ready to come to the floor of the house, and though we spent a good deal of effort over the long term in general terms, over the short term, with regard to specifics here about how they would work. could some people have done more and more information to bring about a different vote on their part? you can always say that, but that is the nature of a legislative body as large as ours that when legislation is ready to go to the floor, it is ready to bring it to the floor. >> thank you. >> thank you, all. >> thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by

national captioning institute] >> tonight on c-span, house majority leader eric cantor and senators mike lee and tim scott outline plans for helping the middle class. followed by a discussion on conservative solutions to domestic issues. senator elizabeth warren and other lawmakers examine the economy and jobs, and education. coming up on the next "washington journal," retired marine sergeant jesse james duff discusses the allegations of mismanagement at ba hospitals. then a look at immigration policy and the chances for legislation this year. our guest is mark rosenblum of the migration policy institute. ingramwriter christopher on gerrymandered congressional districts. is liveton journal"

every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. friday, a look at how advancing technology affects policymaking. radical evolution author and practical futurist founder are at an event hosted by the council on foreign relations. that is live at 12:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. " sundaysnew book, at eight" includes christopher hitchens. i always knew there was a risk in the bohemian lifestyle and i did -- i decided to take it is whether it's an illusion or not, i don't think it is, it helped my concentration. it stopped me being bored, stopped other people being boring to some extent. it would keep me awake and make me go on longer and enhance the

conversation. if i was asked what i do it again, the answer is probably yes. i was hoping to get away with the whole thing. it's easy for me to say but not as nice for my children to hear. it's not very responsible that i would do all that again to you. it would be hypocritical of me to say no. i did know, everyone knows. i decided all of life is a wager. i'm going to wager on this bit. i cannot make it come out any other way. >> read the interview with christopher hitchens another featured conversations from our book notes and programs in "sundays at eight." >> the american enterprise institute had a form thursday on the conservative domestic agenda area house majority leader eric

cantor was joined by senators mike lee and tim scott to outline plans to help the middle class and grow the economy. . this is 45 minutes. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen and we are honored to have you at aei. i'm delighted to welcome you to this event in partnership with the yg network and national affairs. we want to talk to you today

about policy solutions in bringing back the middle class and solving problems of poverty we have seen now for 50 years. today is the 50th anniversary of president lyndon johnson's great society speech that was the beginning of an experiment that basically remade the way our government interacts with its citizens, particularly citizens who are economically vulnerable. president johnson painted a picture of the great society with the following words -- the great society is a place where every child can find knowledge to enrich his mind and to it's a his talents. place where leisure is a welcome chance to build and reflect and not a feared cause of boredom and restlessness. it's a place where the city of man serves not only the needs of the body and the demands of commerce but the desire for beauty and the hunger for community."

those words would be unusual coming from most politicians today. it gives me a minor sense of of the government worrying about the quality of my leisure time. [laughter] the government wants to make sure you are never bored. that sounds like something out of all this huxley. it is a little bit dated to be sure but it's a reminder of what stimulated the modern conservative movement that was overreached by the government in the areas of our lives where the government is not appropriate. goals of therty great society were laudable and they were good. the vision was something i think we can all stand behind today. the question is -- what has happened over the past half-century? what does the data say has happened in these anti-poverty goals? we have spent trillions of dollars on the safety net for the poor. we will spend about a trillion dollars this very year on the

safety net for the poor between transfer payments and overhead. that is not success. only in d.c. does spending cap the success. , when wedeprivation talk about success, is way down and health and longevity are way up. those are wonderful things. life is better for poor people than they were in 1964. that is mostly due to economic growth and the progress of technology. we can plausibly credit some of those gains to safety net programs as well. the problem is, the poverty rate has not changed. in 1964, may 22, the poverty rate was 14.7% of the american population. today is 15%. those numbers would get any ceo in america fired 100 times over. 50 years and no change in the central metric of success in the

war on poverty. this percentage of the popularity -- the percentage of the population has risen from four percent in 1951 before the war on poverty to 35% today. 15%ther words, to keep a poverty rate, we have more more people who are effectively being supported by the government. the percentage of men in the workforce -- this is a metric that is important for the vitality of a society -- it has 68%en from 81% in 1964 to today. the percentage of men between the ages of 20-64 who are not institutionalized, who are not in the workforce am aware idle, has tripled since 1964. let's be honest -- that is not what success sounds like. that is not what success looks like. this has not been a success. some good things have happened but we need to be honest about

these things because we are talking about the lives of poor people here. we are not talking about the egos of policymakers and people who run think tanks. we are talking about millions of americans who have been left behind and it's been acute and worse over the past five years in this country. we have to face facts. there has been a 50% explosion in the uptake of food stamps since january of 2009. we have never seen anything like this. there has been a 20% increase in disability claims. we are leaving the poor behind. we need a new set of solutions that reaches from the poor all the way to the middle class. we cannot afford to continue to be two countries. that's what brings us here together today. we have an incredibly distinguished panel of policymakers were talking about the most cutting-edge ideas in a new great society, in a new war on poverty. we start to my right with house majority leader eric cantor. he has represented the seven to

strict of virginia in the house of representatives since 2001. he was elected by his colleagues in the house to be the majority leader for the 112 congress and again in the 113th before he was the majority leader, he was the house minority whip. senator tim scott on my far right has served the people of south carolina in the u.s. senate since 2013. before he joined the senate when he was a member of the house of representatives in south carolina and for many years, on the charleston city council. this is senator mike lee from utah. he was elected in 2010 and is made a big footprint since then and is known not only as a strong defender of the constitution as a lawyer but as an advocate for the poorest members of our society. there is lots of talk here today and i'm looking forward to hearing with each of these gentlemen has to say. i will get right to it and start ,.th majority leader kantor

there is a lot to talk about in reform conservatism these days. allhave talked about it over the country, making life work, making life better. and there's a new book," making life grow." this has 13 essays that lay out the future. it's a futuristic document but how to make some of these things come to life. the big question is -- what is reform conservatism? what are you pursuing as part of the reform conservative agenda? >> thank you. thanks so much for hosting us here at aei and i want to wish you a belated happy birthday. [laughter] 50 years old in one day so welcome to the ranks. i really appreciate you being here. if we think about it, policymaking is about problem solving. all of us who have had the privilege of being elected into public office should be trying to address problems that the

folks who elect us are facing. you have laid out very sick sink plate the problems i think our country is facing and overwhelmingly, the indications are that the core of america, the working middle class families are facing some serious problems and it's about their outlook and faith in the future and whether they can see a better life for themselves and their kids. as you point out, overwhelmingly, the signs indicate that they don't have that sense that they will and joy upward mobility, that they don't have a sense that somehow they will be able to make a better life for their kids. reform conservatism to me is about applying the conservative principles of individual freedom , personal responsibility, and making sure that we peel back the reach of government to create more space for those working middle class people in

america for the bulk of americans to see a better life. principles toe the actual solutions. to me it's very helpful sometimes to think about the working family or maybe the single mom who at the end of a hard day has put her kids to bed and then has to face how she is going to make ends meet and pay the bills at the end of the month. thinkthat scenario that i the reform conservative movement , the solutions that come out of great thinkers like mike lee and tim scott, those scholars here at aei, can be so beneficial. in the house, we have been about an agenda called an america that works. i was here for two months ago giving a talk entitled " making life work." this is about helping people. this is about encouraging them

and making it easier for people to pursue the happiness that was the vision of the founders of our country. that agenda in the house is very much focused on building on the kinds of reform that tim scott has been talking about on education in the secondary schools, the kinds of reform that mike leigh has been talking about in higher education reform. my job as majority leader to help guide these kinds of ideas through the legislative process. frankly, that's why i am so excited about this new look " room to grow" and the great ideas in there because it reflects the energy and the robust nature of what this reform conservative movement is about. lee, you have been speaking to middle class and working poor concerns since you came to the senate. anybody who thinks they know with the tea party republican is nice to pay attention to what

you're saying because they don't. you are redefining a whole lot of categories, you are scrambling the notions of what it means to be a conservative republican and all kinds of ways i admire very much. our second panel today will discuss room to grow a little bit more. it features one of your bills to expand the child tax credit. can you talk a little bit about that and what it means and morally why it matters? re, as a lead-in to that, i want to say that everything we do in this area, the purpose of conservative reform agenda is to emphasize and understanding expressed by ibrahim lincoln in his first big address to congress when he said the purpose of government is to lift artificial weights from all paths of, to clear the laudable pursuit for all and to afford all an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of

life. that of allemember the obstacles that americans face, particularly working parents, poor and middle-class families, some of the most insurmountable obstacles that have to be removed are put in place in the first place by dysfunctional government policies that are holding people back. starts really where i when i look at this. the greatest opportunities, the greatest engines of economic mobility, not to mention economic growth, are themselves the twin pillars of our society which are free market economy and our voluntary esta tuitions of civil society. when those things are strong, the poor and the middle class can get ahead. we have upward economic mobility when those things are strong.

when they are weakened by government, those things start to atrophy and economic mobility is impaired. you mentioned the child tax credit proposal that i have. the idea there is to get government out of the way at least to have the government stop penalizing hard-working parents. parents in many cases are penalized twice by arotech code. once rather overtly and intentionally with the marriage tax penalty but a second time with an unintended, much less well-known penalty call the parent tax penalty were working parents are taxed effectively twice relative to our senior entitlement programs. they pay once into the system as they work and pay their taxes and they pay into the system the second time as they incur the rather substantial cost of raising their children according to the usda, it works out to about $300,000 per child. in my experience, that's a lowball estimate.

children,aise your you are building the next generation of taxpayers who will be paying the social security and medicare benefits of today's workers, tomorrow's retirees. our current tax code does nothing adequately to offset this significant contribution. when you consider to couples that have otherwise the same tax situation and the same income and charitable contributions and same mortgage, couple a has four children and couple b remains childless but couple will be putting into the system ties but -- twice but couple will be putting money into retirement so this tax credit starts to offset the parent tax penalty. of one of the ideas you are seeing coming from this group -- you can read about in this book but you will see more of reflected in legislation. when i getwhen you

together socially, we inevitably talk about your ideas for helping poor people, something we care about a lot and something you have a lot of personal its periods in. you have an incredible inspiring life story. you have lived a lot of the things you have talked about in trying to help people. you are a guy who thinks for himself. when people say what is the new right? i say google tim scott. this is a man who thinks for himself. can you talk a little bit more broadly about what you have learned from the great society program? what have they done well? what have they done poorly and how can we learn from it? a if you step back for second, i like to think for myself but i have listened to you for a long time and learned a lot. when the most important diet mountain dew tastes almost

as good as regular mountain dew. i appreciate that, thank you for pointing that out. in addition, when you think about things that fail and things that work, that diet mountain dew really does matter. they wanted to feel good and make a difference. is toct of the matter kids like me growing up in houses of francis scott living in the wrong zip code, it did not work very well. when you look at those same zip codes, things are getting worse. that is part of the challenge that we face. we have to try to figure out how to have an education system that is not driven by zip codes. we have to study the root and not the fruit. we have a conversation about the

fruit. what i learned as a kid who flunked out of high school and then got it right is that education seems to be the gateway to the american dream. unless we will focus more attention on the root causes, we will never get rid of the fruit. timeve not spent enough seeking out how to unleash the some of ourined in poorest areas of the country. the school choice opportunity that we have focused on really does that. we provide real opportunities for kids mired in poverty and has been very successful. the d.c. opportunity scholarship is case in point. over the last two years, we have seen 6000 students go through the opportunity scholarship program and has produced remarkable results. kids who do not go through the opportunity scholarship or have

the opportunity to go to a school of their parents choice .raduate about 56% of the time those kids who were enrolled in the d.c. opportunity scholarship actuate about 93% of the time -- graduate about 93% of the the time. 91% of those kids go on to receive a college education. if we're going to address the challenges, we have to look at the fruits. sometimes they are -- we have to look at the roots. sometimes they are pretty simple. it helps us eliminate poverty permanently as opposed to having simple band-aids brought to you by the united states government that cost too much, delivers too little, and does not alleviate the ultimate pain. >> one of the things i admire is that your fundamental orientation about the poor is

that they are assets, not liabilities. they are people that have value. i speakf the things -- in schools every month. put on poor being kids, at risk kids. what an awful label for a kid. we were high potential children who have the same potential as anyone else if we are shown the right way and the government cannot do that. we need local control and parents to have more choices so kids have a better chance. i get pretty excited about it you guys i was a kid flunking out of high school. there is a great opportunity for

america to embrace its highest potential folks, who often times are left out of the economic chain. >> this is a point that marco rubio makes a lot, too. it characterizes the new right. another point that all three of reasone made is that the for free enterprise is not the rich. the reason for free enterprise is the poor. do not need free enterprise as much as poor people do and that leads me to the next topic. what of the things we have been barriers to poor people availing themselves of the blessings of the free enterprise system. washington, if you want

to be a real estate agent, and that is a typical job for a , you need 135 hours of basic licensing. be a say you want to cosmetologist because you want to do nails or braid hair in your home for money. which is a typical first job who has -- for a single mom. to not be fined, you need 1500 days in licensing, 200 school and the district of columbia. that is anti-poor and it is un-american amanita solution. -- and we need a solution. >> your focus on the poor and

the working middle class is where this entire reform conservative movement is about. the bulk of the people in this country are not those who have a college or -- graduate degree. they are wage earners. they feel this country is not there for them. we want to restore that faith in the future. you point out there are way too many barriers to success. is oneensing question that i think strikes to the heart of what america is about. you have always talked about the earned success of this country and that being the way to best pursue happiness. if you have government in a place where it says, we will just make it more difficult. if you look at young people today, the examples going on, the kinds of upstarts in the

theomy, food tracks, uber, immediate reaction to government if we want to stop it. you point out about a cosmetologist. in the house, we had a hearing of small business committees. on average, you are right, across the country, 300 72 days to become a licensed cosmetologist. if you look at a position like an emergency medical technician, there is only 33 days required. most people who don't have a higher education degree, they deserve us to exert extra effort to tear down these areas -- barriers. we're going to move along the front. i intend to reach out to the governors around the country and to do an inventory of what

they're licensing practices are about. let's tear down those barriers for people who want to start to get into the workforce and the problem is the federal government is funding training programs that help those licensing regimes grow. we need to stop that. the incentives are wrong. hopefully, we can do that and come down the side of the working middle class, those individuals who do not necessarily have the higher education degrees, but make up the bulk of working middle class people and kids who want their life to be better. >> can you get democrats to join you? >> i hope so. when i was here 14 months ago, i talked a lot about skills training. ,e have made a lot of progress bipartisan progress, i think the bill will make it across to the president's desk. did as i hoped the bill we

last week on school choice, for those kids that tim talks about, maybe we can make some progress. senators,her of our this is a hard question, but we need an answer to it. one of the big initiatives of the white house, one of their big answers to fixing low wages, is force companies to pay them more. $10.10.m wage of that is because it is an easy number to remember, which sees an odd -- which seems to not policy. that is a big jump. that is going to shave 500,000 jobs off the bottom of the workforce. we fret about that a lot, but we have to have an answer. you guys are fighting for people. what do you say?

devastating. -- it is devastating to the people who are the most vulnerable. think about the impact that has it has already had because of the mandatory on the military bases. subway have shut their doors throughout this country. letters from folks who are entrepreneurs who are looking forward to having more opportunities to work with the government because they found the dream. but now that door has been shut because you cannot mandate a $10 10 cents wage without unintended consequences. $10.10 wage without unintended consequences. ton you go from $7.25 and go

$10.10, you're going to raise the qualifications for that entry level job, which means you will reduce the number of low income opportunities -- applicants who can apply for this jobs. you are going to quickly make the decision to automate. when you automate, you eliminate more jobs. you are going to raise the price on the widget or whatever is made, which means those folks who are most vulnerable can now afford even less. the impact is significant. i spoke at a high school recently and when i realized, you count to five and you say, which one of your friends do you want to lose their job? that is what happens. when you talk to one of high school kids, you realize that most of them, after a year on the job, no longer make the

minimum wage because they earned a higher wage and they felt good about that. >> we will turn to the audience in just a second, but i want to hear mike lee. get your questions ready, folks. isthe real minimum wage zero. you will push a lot of people to a minimum wage of zero if government artificially steps in and tries to manipulate the price. a lot of people will just lose their jobs. americansard-working feel that the system is rigged against them. and they are absolutely right. every time government intervenes in the free market economy, every time it involves itself excessively, either by dictating wages or through imposing excessive regulations of

investing government funds with friends of the government administration in charge, every time it does that, these things work to the benefit of large wealthy incumbents in the marketplace. people get wealthier at the top and of the economic spectrum. this is not what we need. what we need is for the government to get out of the way and for the government to allow americans to do what they do best. that is why one of the things we can do to help the poor and middle classes to focus on anti-cronyism agenda, one that gets the government out of the way, one that starts with getting government out of the business of the export import bank, things like opec. government is picking winners in the market base and subsidizing them heavily. imposing onerous regulations and

make it harder for newer players to enter the marketplace. these things kill jobs and depress wages and they make it harder for hard-working americans. if we want the poor and middle-class to be better off, we should not raise the middle of -- minimum wage. we should focus on getting rid of crony capitalism and excessive taxation. >> one concrete thing we can do right now to tear down the to look to repealing the rule under obamacare that has reduced the work week from 40 to 30 hours. interestingly, if you look at the math, the numbers involved with the $10 10 sent minimum minimum wage, it is about a two dollar difference per paycheck if you repeal that rule.

that is what we can do now when we have done it in the house. if the president were serious about wanting to help wage earners, we could do that right now. >> he may be watching. we will turn to the audience. please wait for the microphone and say your name. >> thank you for your wonderful comments. i wanted to ask about a particular subset of the poor and that is americans with disabilities. generations,me, there has been a real bigotry of low expectations for young people with disabilities where they are told when they are young that they will never work and they will live on benefits. i am wondering if you are looking at programs that can employment first

mentality so the majority of americans with disabilities can work. mr. brooks cited some in port and statistics about the lack of improvement. since the 88, there has been a zero percent improvement in the ada,ntage -- since the there has been a zero percent improvement in the percentage of those working. ont are your thoughts expanding the american dreams for americans with disabilities? >> i would wholeheartedly support an effort that would improve the environment for the principle of work. that is what the country was based on. we've begun to do this in the area of entitlements. a lot of the discussion around the nutrition program had to be with restoring the work requirement. if someone is going to get a benefit, he ought to be willing to try to work.

if there is a job available, fine. if not, participate in a training program. to commit to volunteer service. the same principles should be applied to the disability community. we should provide a pathway for those who are disabled to enjoy what our country is about, which is built on the principle of work. i look forward to looking at that further. >> one of the things we act is a in my choice component for kids with special needs. their funding in education to be portable because one of the things we ran into, one shot in particular, rachel lewis. when she was in kindergarten, her parents fought to keep her in mainstream classes because

she was able to do the work. but the schools were not willing to do so. school inle to find a greenville, south carolina, called hidden treasures. their object to is to help make sure -- objective is to make sure the kids with special needs get the best education suited for their skill sets. rachel has two jobs. she is functioning at a very high level because she was nurtured and given the opportunity to succeed at her full potential. there is a company, i believe it is walgreens, 40% of their workforce have special needs. it is the most productive warehouse facility in the entire country. >> [inaudible]

first row. >> i have a question for senator lee. tax creditbout the you want to put in place. this strikes me of a classic interventionnment being mitigated by another government intervention. >> we are living with the system that we have. we start with the system that we have. our senior entitlement programs operate the way they do. that being the case, this is not creating another interference. favorednot another class. this is a modest effort to offset unfair treatment at one group is being given. it is inevitable that they will continue to receive that unfair

treatment as long as we don't do something like this. this is not a benefit we are adding. if anything, if you want to analyze this, this does not offset the parent tax penalty. a lot of those are benefiting from the children being raised by the parents incurring substantial childrearing costs. those costs are contributing to the stability of our senior entitlement programs. that needs to be recognized by our tax code. >> in the middle -- good morning. . served with an organization i have a question that talks about education but more specifically about technical training. as we recalibrate primary and secondary education, is there some way to get back to the

point where we are including the idea of technical training being a dignified way for people to graduate from high school so that they can be prepared for technical jobs? between half a million and a million unfilled technical jobs in this country and i wonder, as we recalibrate, if that could be included in the thinking and design. i spent some time in my district in virginia and elsewhere looking at apprenticeship programs, looking at ways for kids to find a career path. going to get a four-year degree is not for them. tomorrow, i will be in charlotte with another apprenticeship program by the county. i think you are exactly right. we need to be about providing pathways for careers.

we need to tear down those barriers. with thee problems increase in cost of tuition, the desire for folks to undertake student debt and loans. they finish their college and their major is not one that perhaps allows them to seek a job that could allow them to go out on the round and repay their debts and the in depth with the kids going back to -- and the end up with the kids going back to live with their parents again. we have some great programs partnering with a printed ship programs and they could find themselves -- apprenticeship programs and they could find themselves in a technical position that would allow them to make over $100,000 a year. we need freedom of choice. we should not be insisting one way or the other is better. you will see us in the house this year.

we will be taking up the higher-end authorization act -- the higher education reauthorization act and we will be looking at educational programs. >> some of the things we have seen succeed when i was in high school, there was a dual track in education that we seem to have lost. we oversold the importance of a four-year education undersold the real opportunity of the second part of the track. the skills act, something we took from the house and brought to the senate, allows for more training dollars to end up in technical schools or job-training center so that we can have a dual track. , they say they will have a massive shortage in aerospace for machinists because there has

been such a focus outside of the , butthat pay really well does not require the college education. we are trying to focus on reinstituting this notion of a dual track. forould be a fantastic education. i want to summarize this briefly. it ties into the question here. the idea behind this is to give states the option creating their own alternative accreditation system for higher education purposes. students could participate in title iv federal funding while participating in a higher outside the traditional department of education supervised accreditation system. the purpose is to allow for more

people to have access to vocational training. in other cases, massive online courses. there is a lot that can be learned. it could benefit them and put them on a career path. going to be as place for those institutions. in our information age economy, where one's access to the middle class and the economic ladder depends on one's education. we need to increase the number of providers for higher education. as we do that, we will see the prices go down. tim carney -- >> doesn't it only address half the problem? rick santorum said while rising

tides lifts all boats, it does not lift the boats that have holes in them. a lot of the emphasis is the free enterprise step to create the opportunities, but does their need -- but does there need to be more emphasis on the folks who have boats with holes in them? >> i think if you look at the numbers for the chronically overrepresented, those individuals who lack the schools -- skills necessary for the opportunities for the jobs of today. one of the items we talked about 14 months ago here that we have made bipartisan progress on as an agreement has been reached is

the skills act. trying to consolidate the federal dollars that go into worker training programs to make one-stop, make their shop for a person who was in a situation where their background and skill set is not suited for a career for them to take off. it is true, we have to do all of this. we have to create the environment for people to succeed and that starts with tearing down the barriers. a lot of vested interest out there to create so much difficulty in understanding for someone to even go to a community college or somewhere else to even get some progress so they can be marketable and get a job and have a career. it is tearing down barriers. at that level, it is creating the opportunity for an entrepreneur to do his or her job as well and pursue their

dreams by getting government out of the way. of thelast question session -- my question has to do with skills and workforce investment act. congressman brooks included language that provides for act into a paid performance program. the senate version allows governors act to use up to 10% r paid performance job-training programs. do notypes of programs reimburse the various nonprofits and government programs unless individuals get jobs and deliver a w-2 to that job-training

program a year later showing they got a job and kept a job. can you talk about what you are hearing and seeing? >> accountability is what we are after. we want programs that work and we want to make folks life for better. if the test is federal dollars going to states for programs that do not work, we would much rather than work. i'm in favor of creating those incentives. it is hard. it is very difficult for the establishment to accept that there needs to be a system by which we succeed, not just by existing. i would be in favor of those kinds of incentives. the agreement under way in the house and senate does reflect

the first step towards that end. >> we have come to the end of this session. my closing comment is simply this. we have talked about the what of better policies. n the why. -- let's remember the why. the question is whether or not we have enough love in our hearts for every american to fight for every policy. the cinnamon do and please join me in thanking them. -- these gentlemen do and please join me in thanking them. [applause] >> more from the american enterprise institute for him. book --ors of the new

this is about an hour. i will turn it over to kate. [applause]

[inaudible] is going to be talking specifically about policy in room to grow. we have both contributors to the project and observers whose reactions would like to hear. briefly introduced this panel because so many of them are well known to you. a senior writer at national review, a fellow here at the aei, and a columnist for bloomberg. editor of national affairs, our cohost for this morning's program, and a fellow at the

ethics and public policy center. he is a columnist, a contributor at cnn, and he has been advising. pete is a fellow at ethics and public policy and is a veteran of the past three republican administrations. i thought i would ask short leading questions and get there quick responses and then leave time for questions from the audience. let me begin with pete. class and whyddle an agenda focused on the middle class? >> [inaudible]

the people to my rightful deal with political philosophy and public policy and i will deal with semantics and pulling. -- polling. there is a technical and a practical answer. people making somewhere between $39,000 and $118,000 a year. the practical is practically everybody. everybody the audience probably. people appeared do as well -- people appeared do as well. 85% of americans consider themselves a part of the middle class. it is basically people who do not consider themselves rich and they do not consider themselves poor and they can imagine their fortunes going either way. agenda onthe focus an them, because we are talking about the broad base of the

country any successful local party or movement needs to be seen as addressing their concerns. frankly, that is not happening right now. i wanted to touch on several takeaways by had from some boards i did for this book, "room to grow." anxiety,ant mood is insecurity, and unease. they're working harder, more hours, but wages are stagnant and the cost of living has gone way up. they're working harder and losing ground. the middle-class is increasingly pessimistic. two thirds of americans and it is harder to reach the american dream that was for the parents and three quarters think it is going to be harder for their children and grandchildren to

succeed. who does the middle-class hold responsible? the political class. 62% but a lot of the blame on congress. that is followed by banks and financial institutions and corporations. congress is viewed institutionally as the biggest problem and biggest obstacle to what they want. the news is bleak for the republican party. the middle-class is more likely to say the democrats, rather than republicans, favor their interest. those in the middle class say the republican party favors the rich. 16% say that of the democratic party. already seven percent say the democratic -- 37% say the democratic favors the middle-class.

when asked which groups are helping the middle class, 17% have a positive response to republican elected officials. 46% were negative. the challenge for the gop is to explain how a conservative vision of government can speak to today's public and severance and explain -- the public's concerns and explain how it would translate into concrete policies. that is really what this book attempts to answer. for some of those answers, i will turn it over. you, before we get to specific policy proposals, conservatives agree the government is way too big and too intrusive. what is its proper role in addressing the anxieties and ambitions of the middle-class? i like the way you put the

question because i think thinking about it in terms of the role of government helps us to avoid the trap was starting only with the size of government. in doing up in an argument about how big the liberal welfare state should be. ais book shows that conservative governing vision, which would lead us to a leaner and less costly and more effective government begins with a different idea of what government should be. the core of that idea is that the aunt national defense -- be on national defense and public safety, government exists for society to better address its problems. it is a supporting role, supportive of the role of families and communities and civil society and markets.

government exists to strengthen the space in which the social institutions can thrive. to help people benefit from what they do. the government exists not to administer society, but to empower people to meet the challenges they face. that is in contrast to a vision that is, nonetheless that said government exists to manage society and to run the key institutions and to organize the distribution of resources. that is a very misguided idea of the role of government and it does not work very well. it is more out of step with the realities of american life. it is the difference between a bottom-up and a top-down vision of life. difference, but it translates into some very practical differences about how to solve problems between left and right. conservatives think society

cannot really run from the center. no one has the knowledge to solve big social problems in a technical way. those problems have to be addressed from the bottom up through a learning process that follows a series of steps that we can think of as experimentation, it valuation, and evolution. problem, we the first that people try different ways of addressing it. we let citizens choose. we keep the ones that work and we dropped the ones that fail. it is a process that is the way in which we make ongoing progress toward solving complicated problems. that is what government should help facilitate. that is how markets work. that is why conservatives talk in terms of more market oriented solutions. not always simply markets, but many times, but always this

process of solving problems. this way of dealing with complicated problems. that is not how government works. options are limited by prescriptive bureaucratic way of thinking. recipients of services do not make choices and failures never go away. from thees moving welfare state model to more like a market oriented model. so that the role of government would be to enable that kind of -- enable society to do what it does rather than try to stand in for it. that means setting goals and leading providers compete and it means creating the conditions for competition. sometimes it means providing people with information about their options. in means rather than using

government to substitute for that process, the core of so much of what american society does well and running things from the center, instead using government to facilitate the process. it gives people more options and more control. that is a lot of what conservatives have always had to offer. that is what cool choice is about. -- school choice is about. it is that we think about some of the elements of the welfare system. facilitation rather than administration. in every instance, removing burdens, freeing up resources and options for families rather than trying to do everything on their behalf. everything in this book is an example of that. that means a lot of what conservatives want to do is illuminating or repealing or taking away a lot of what the federal government is doing wrong now.

at the core of these kinds of proposals, it is the way of thinking about the role of government. it is much more modern and affect events suited to the 21st century and also a much more traditional american idea of the relationship between the citizen and the state. >> thank you. people, whatelping should conservatives be you saying about -- be saying about inequality and is this agenda relative to that debate? >> i do not think the conservative should be saying a lot about inequality. that would be a mistake. they should change the subject to things that are more substantively and politically important. on the political front, the

things that struck me about this debate is just what a low salience concern inequality is. if you ask people what issues if the president has been talking about inequality for two months straight, you can get that number of people who say inequality is their top concern all the way up to four percent. i strongly suspect that four percent is not composed mostly of people who are persuadable by conservative ideas. thatvidence suggests people are a lot more concerned about -- i the kind of cost of living issues that are -- that are book talks about. -- our book talks about.

the cost of raising kids, the cost of energy, higher education, health care. these are all things that we can tackle with conservative reforms . some of those reforms might reduce inequality and some might increase them. what they will do is help create the conditions for broad-based prosperity. that is what we ought to be thinking about. we should be concerned about how the people at the bottom in the middle are doing, what it is not fruitful to conceive of that in terms of economic inequality. up by the fact that the contemporary left is so obsessed about this question that is just not a pressing concern for most middle-class americans. -- mightral question

conservatives hope that an agenda like this has some potential to shrink government? all, thank you so much for including me since i am not one of the co-authors featured in the book. i think -- i will make a semi-pessimistic case which is that i think this is an agenda that conservatives can look to in the hopes of substantially restraining the growth of government. that is -- that is a more pessimistic frame then how can we have an agenda to substantially reduce the size and scope of government. it is useful to recognize both

as a political and a policy matter that what has happened over the last 30 or 40 years has threatened -- has shrunk the natural consistency -- constituency for conservative ideas. wage stagnation, family break down, social crisis in lower middle class america, all of those forces have tended to undercut the building blocks of limited government conservatism. the mediating institutions between the states an individual, the church, the family, the voluntary organization. they have created a situation in which many americans feel in their own lives as though they need not just the existing government have a but a larger welfare state.

that is the political challenge the republican party has dealt with unsuccessfully in the last two presidential election cycles. it is a basic policy problem for conservatives. limited government conservatism to exist and for american exceptionalism, which is bound up in a more limited conception persist, you, to need a broad base of support for those ideas. to have a broad base of support for those ideas, you need to have a large percentage of americans who feel like the system is working for them. triage. an element of in what some of these proposals are trying to tackle, particularly in terms of how they look at the struggles of families raising children, the less educated downwardly mobile

working class men who are getting detached from the a sense inthere is which some of these policy proposals are targeted towards populations that would have been republican constituencies and are on the verge of becoming democratic and liberal constituencies for the for siebel future -- foreseeable future. this is the most controversial .art element of -- directing resources, there is an element of directing resources towards the intertwined areas of work and family. the strongest case for doing that kind of resource direction, for trying to help people who are working, helping

people who are trying to raise kids, if you do not do it, you will not have a constituency for limited government constituents and at all. im way ofhe gra looking at it. >> thank you, ross, i think. >> i will give you an added burden. i will give you double duty. feel free to react to anything that your fellow panelist have said. when it comes to the agenda, i would love for you to react specifically to the higher education reforms. do they really hold the promise to reduce cost and debt? maybe improve quality? >> i will start on a personal note to say that i have the good

fortune to finish college and i was able to finish without too much debt because the whole time i was growing up, both of my parents worked two jobs and every moment i got to spend with them was precious and they did that because it was very and pour into them that i go to college and my sisters went to important tory them that i go to college and my sisters go to college. a trillion dollars of student loans debt weighing down americans right now. that is more than the credit card debt. is andrew kelly in the room? he wrote a brilliant chapter about higher education in one of the things he points out that is pretty disturbing is that, a trillion dollars in student loans debt, those guys finished college and they are earning more money because of it. fair enough. the college completion rate in

the united states is not 100%. it is nowhere close to that. than half, i believe. there are a lot of people who are taking on this nonrecourse student loan debt and guess what -- they are not even getting a degree. i was able to get out with a college degree and it made a huge difference in my life. it gave me skills and networks and has enabled me to do the kind of job that would've been a complete fantasy from the perspective of my 16-year-old self. when you look at the way we talk about higher education, what do we hear about? we need more subsidies. we need parent loans. parents can take as much debt as

colleges charge tuition, whether or not they will be able to carry that debt. you solve the liquidity problem and you let terrence who love their kids take out loan after then theirloan and kids are not actually finishing because you have higher education institutions that are failing young americans. there is one perspective that says, we have the system, let's not mention that it is completely broken and let's let them get away with failing young people. anys not impose transparency on these schools morehat is -- we will give money to these schools. we will let you, the parents, take on more debt. think about what you have all talked about before. we need the middle space between the individual and the federal government. we need to create new institutions of higher education and we need to see to it that

colleges and universities are accountable to parents. parents have some reliable sense, getting a degree in sports management is not going to translate into a lucrative career. if you do not have those connections. students need those market signals, they are not stupid. they are working incredibly hard. they have bigger barriers. sometimes they do not come from intact families. that is what andrew kelly writes about in this book. it is not just about giving more money. there will be a lot of people who will say, they want to help poor people. what is different from what liberals want to do? wewon a dynamic process -- want a dynamic process of choice and accountability.

to pour more tax dollars into failing institutions. we want to think about those people who are facing a tougher time today because they are facing a wage crunch. fuddy-duddies. this is about america the way it is right now. 1/10 of the people in this country are like me, children of immigrants. we need new institutions to help them and that is what this book is all about and you have to read it. thank you. [applause] assassins spanned out across the nation and assassinated all of administrators. bear in mind. >> do you have a reaction? >> the thing that you offered up

here and this is very important for the conservative movement. how do you approach it? these are the conditions facing americans in the 21st century and we have these institutions and policies and programs, many of which were created in the middle part of last century. they need to be reformed and updated and modernized.

oft is an important bedrock what we are talking about. >> i want to make two points about the size and scope of government. the first is a political point, which is you need to have some kind of attractive middle-class agenda if you are going to be in the position to do some of the other kinds of government limiting steps. last couple of elections, republicans have run on a reasonably bold medicare reform and it does not appear to have cost them anything. some of the policies are helpful in creating that center-right majority.

we should not think about limiting government purely in terms of budget. let's say the ideas in the chapter on health care were not going to cut health-care spending. rid -- if you reform medicare so it is much less prescriptive and much more market friendly, all of these things are in a very meaningful sense. even if they do not affect how much money the federal government is spending. it would be a huge difference in people's lives that comes from restraining the reach of government. try to answer ross's horrible pessimistic -- a jewish

optimist is someone who says things cannot get any worse. -- it takes for granted the sustainability of what we are doing now, which i do not think we can take for granted. it assumes there are people who are drifting towards the democratic coalition because they are comfortable with some of the benefits they are being offered. i think what is happening is something rather different. neither party has done a great job of recognizing it and we have a democratic party that ainks it is always 1965 and republican party that thinks it is always 1981. if they came to see where we are in america, republicans would be looking at some incredible opportunities and democrats would be looking at some serious problems. america is in the midst of a transition.

it is built around large consolidated centralized institutions. it is a way of life that is where americans have a huge array of choices in every part of life and get to define their options and enable improvements for the choices they make. that is happening everywhere except in government. to me, that means the government we have and the approach we have the government is becoming less and less useful to society. these changes in a way offer great promise and it manages and improvement. they also offer great risks and dangers that are economic, cultural, structural that affect people's lives in ways that can lead them to hope and fear. the left today is stuck

defending broken systems that are built for that very different way of thinking about american life. where big government and big as ms. domenech the economy. to thinkis possible the centralizing tendencies of the welfare state are away of addressing the social states and the left finds it self trying to build on failures and avoid change and insist this is not happening, that's government and prevent changes, whether then allow people to benefit from the advantages and protect them from the risks. the right obviously has its own problems, but i think consumers have a huge amount to offer going forward. the role is very well-suited to the challenges and the way of life we're going into now. we should bek thinking of a static place where the problem is liberals all winning and conservatives are

losing. i think both parties are exhausted at the same time so this moment is not like the late 1970's and the late 1980's. it is a much more challenging thing and away. the way to think about the challenges we face and thinking about policy is what we can offer the country given that right number of voters think neither party is offering them anything. conservatives are much better position to offer americans a way of understanding where we are headed invoking -- making the most of it, which leaves me a little more optimistic than russ, but that is not saying much. >> we need to bring the audience discussion and now. the book is highly readable, well-documented. i particularly commend the opening chapter where he elaborates.

the moment conservatives are in given his convictions a liberal aggressive agenda is spent. and we arething new, seeing it discredited almost on the daily basis. so he talks about what a moment it is for conservatives. so i recommend the entire book but make sure you pay particular attention to the physical -- philosophical case you have all made. starting with questions. taking to read over here. right overwo here. >> i am an attorney and writer and have always been involved in politics. i remember early is states are the laboratory of democracy, and i am wondering if you would like to comment regarding the federal government

versus the state, because i think the states could really help out in the new ideas, even loosening the reins. >> excellent point. >> i imagine there are other folks who have something to say about this. folks on theot of left to talk about inequality when it is really the cost of living that is the issue for most working middle income americans. when you think about the lost -- cost-of-living issues, think about the debate and the fact that most conservatives are totally flat-footed. they do not know what to say. they prefer to change the subject when we start talking about minimum wage. connecticut.d let's reflect on that. in california you have a state where it is pretty much impossible to find unaffordable rental anywhere close to where

you might find a job. why is that? is that because the ?aw of god and mountain it is because you are not allowing people to build. you end up empowering people who own real estate in these places. you are talking about the minimum wage. care about the standard of living. you see this big change in the numberstates were huge of african-americans tend to overwhelmingly be democrats. where are they moving? moving to the northeast come a places like california, dallas, houston and atlanta. they're moving to places of affordable housing or you have state and local policies that are about getting people in homes in seeing to it they have the disposable income they need to make a life for themselves.

that is why state policies matter a lot. we are seeing conservative places, all they're doing is letting people build. you see middle-class people go to those places and flocked to the places. we need to think about rather than one-size-fits-all policy. >> i should jump in. my constitutional issues with the book. aboutk when we talk ,ederalism and conservatives political propriety, and we need to talk little bit more about the practical benefits of constitutional benefits. i think medicaid is a great example where the co-mingling of

funds, the absence of separationists veers between the state government and federal governments have created a situation where we get more government and worse government and less accountable government in moving toward accountable government should be a bigger part of the constitutional rhetoric. a second question here and then mona. skimmed through the book. a first pass. it strikes me that i has the --ength and with mrs. weaknesses of conservatives. whenever it talks about solutions, my sense is it tends to be very tentative and timid. not with a clear, this is what we would do in the first six months of the administration. to come out with

the next version? >> and you have the chance, i recommend you do more than skim. i think you do see there are lots of concrete or postals but i will turn the microphone over. ini want to make a case terms of humility. >> and thinking the left doesn't not either. we should not replace that with big massive conservative legislation that says we know how to solve these problems. the problem is your technocrats got the math wrong in subsection seven.

i think what we need is a different approach to how we do policy at the federal level. this different approach has to think in terms of facilitating society attempt to solve problems. that will not look like a conservative version of the great society. look like a very different approach to public policy. venues andate platforms for people to experiment with solutions in an ongoing way. american society is always going to be doing that. always going to be incrementally solving problems. we are not working toward an end here. ultimately we have reached a great deal society and now it is all working fine as long as everyone does what they're told. we are creating a situation where people can live free lives and government exists to help them do that and to deal with some of the problems that only

government can help them deal with. that is going to be a much more modest approach to public policy than we're used to in america. >> if you look at the track , i do not think politically or substantively the record is particularly good. ,lmost all of these things clinton helped are not going anywhere or the social security initiative or the way obamacare is rolled out, i think almost any of it has gone well or something americans look back on fondly. i think that should tell us something and should recast the point that you have all made. i think we need to make a bold rake with the sweeping vision. up again aseak

someone who did not write a chapter and not officially affiliated with the project, i think if you sat down and distilled policy proposals, which out of a substantial portion of the chapter you would have a pretty sweeping week and call it a first hundred days agenda, first 365 days agenda but it would not maybe have the sweeping this -- sweeping of the new deal. obviously i agree with mike colleagues that that is not the sweeping conservative should go for but i think between tax education reform, entitlement reform, you can go and come up with the number of bold incrementalism that would get a substantial list

of policies. i completely agree the lessons of the past several administrations are that passing any kind of policy is extremely difficult in the policy you do pass tends to be not what you hoped it would be. at this point i would like to stress the fact that let's say a future republican congress and senate were to pass in the first 100 days a tax reform that i personally would favor, which would be some combination of the proposal on the one hand and what date can put out on the other. that is a very broad sketch but basically a conservative leaning tax reform that is more family -- family-friendly than what the wall street journal would tend to support. that would be a big deal. we have not had tax reform of any kind in the u.s. in 30 years and doing something like that plus one or two of the other ideas here --

would health care agenda be a big idea. >> right. it would be the first sweeping conservative health-care reform policy passed by the united states congress and all of american history -- that is not there. fair. but in terms of scale, it would be financial. we do not have to look at this at ideas thatlook senator lee and rubio have put together. safety netthe reforms, that would be the most substantial reforms of the safe the net since well for itself. i completely agree it is into the to not fall trap of revolutionary politics and someone but also useful at this juncture when we are very far away from imagining this thatg real reform

emphasizing the possibility of substantial reform is useful. >> i think part of what the skip taking thebe we are question in two different ways. --en so many of the problem public problems are functions about public policy, addressing them in a new way doesn't mean bold change mean a in what government has been doing and undoing the policy that has been done. what we think of as public policy problems, so many of them are functions of great society programs gone wrong. there is no way around the need to change that dramatically. reforms involve very bold changes for what the government is doing now. what they would not involve is nearly as bold and approach to society on the part of government but a much different attitude. that would require a lot of change.

echo what you of what we areich is talking about here is essentially play on different ground. what this requires is a pretty fundamental shift in how conservative speak about and understand and explain to the public organizing principles of the reforms. too often i think conservatives have simply said government is too big, we ought to spend less and not talk about the purposes of government, just simply the size. conservative some lawmakers have to get more saynt is in the capacity to how we view the think and view the role of government that helped them in the present circumstance. i would not underestimate the importance of that as a frame around these issues. and he at -- in any event, if

ross is right, we will not have to worry about a seven-day agenda for a long time. >> we have a question. in 2012, at the democratic convention there was an opening video that some of us watched saidse we have to and is -- it said the government. basis of different ethnicities and colors and so on. it is the one thing that brings us all together. the one thing we have in common. now this is reiterated republicans make criticism about government policy. accusing of being unpatriotic because they're criticizing the government. my question for the panel is, is

the something republicans need to have a response to, and if so, what is the response? an opening chapter question. you, irtainly agree with think the instinctive response a lot of republicans had was to place of the individual, which is very important to do. we did that in 2012 because of that you did not build this stuff that rubbed us the wrong way to put it mildly. i think it is very important in thinking about what is really wrong with the argument, the notion that government is the one thing we all do together. what is really long -- wrong with that is it misses a most everything we actually do together. this is where american society has always been at its best. everything from the family

through the community through civil society and religious institutions to the economy are things that we do together that are not government. the purpose of government is just -- to sustain a space where those things can be done in a freeway and a way that allows people to achieve the goals they want together. to progressivism is not radical individualism. those two things of the same thing. the vision of government of the core of progressivism it society consists of individuals in the state of that is it. the purpose of the state is to individualism. the conservative answer it society consists of the things we do together, one of which is government but by no means the most important were the one that serves us best. the conservative answer is the society. government is just one of the things society does to allow itself to solve problems.

nowhere near the only one or most important one. i completelyat agree with what you all have said as an answer to a collect this argument or rhetoric, but also important to note it is a much better answer than the one conservatives are often inclined to give to respond with rhetoric of commercial and evangelism. that is part of what is wrong i think with the over emphasis on entrepreneurship we have seen and tipped over all the way over ianism.y and his hi we will reform institutions so they are supporting you. .rying to direct your life we cannot see the entire field of community over to the left. two more questions. 10 --ve been such a not

and attentive audience for the better part of the morning. we will try to end on time. my name is bob patterson, conservative. in your opening remarks you pasted the contrast between the welfare state model and a market model of government. is there not a third model that the conservative should think about? what i mean by the third model is one that goes back to alexander hamilton and the school and henry clay talked about the american system and lincoln who will the continental railroad and a real fan of clay. teddy roosevelt. bigg government to do projects that have tremendous economic results and dramatically raised living

standards and elevated the middle class. is there not a third model called the american system with the government does have not prominent but a trigger role that does these big projects that has huge effects, good effects on the middle class? i would say facilitating the function of society. there is certainly a place for government to enable institutions to function. there are times and places where only government would provide the infrastructure, physical that allowsre constitutions to function. the question is, do you see government in a management role or in a facilitating role? i think the facilitating role is much more friendly to the idea you're suggesting.

this basically says the government goal is to enable people to thrive. does not define how they will do it. i think that is very friendly to the kind of conservative notion i am describing. is not the only institutions that fills that space. in talking about market orientation, i do not think you're suggesting it is about turning everything over to markets but using the ways in which market successfully solve problems to use that to solve other problems in the arena of life and includes the infrastructure. i think it has to be understood as alimited way, supporting role and not in a way that defines the goals and manages all the projects and tells people what to do at the end of the day. it is a different way of thinking about the relationship

between state and society. vividlyis very illustrated in the book. you really see the way the job can facilitate innovation. lex one last question right here. >> i was really interested for your comments on education and the scam were kids are taking on debt for degrees that will not enable a better future. i wanted to ask if you have given thought to practical work experience because in boehner's district there is a terrific program called project search with this people abilities in their last year of schools do a series of three learn how tod they work. what is interesting about that is 70% of the kids did jobs

afterwards. kids with very significant .isabilities yet they are more likely to get a job out of that and kids who go to college and certainly university is -- a phoenix. i was wondering if you look at these really structured internship as a way to help people deal with pop -- poverty. or like in israel where they get the real, practical experience? we will have responsive remarks to make, but i won't mind you our education authors and yourhere at aei specific direction may be directed at them because they

are so fluid with promising experiments going on. just briefly, one of the big challenges we have is for lot of the kids the deficit is an noncognitive skills. learning the habits of the workplace. apprenticeship programs that have been enormously successful. i think that is something we ought to build and. it is also important to say it is not about college and its role but a universe of post secondary options that are not thislet's push everyone in one direction. i think the broader themes of the book are all about the let's create institutions that evil, that are dynamic and responsive to the unique challenges many different communities face. eligible for free lunch in the suburbs of kansas city are very different from those in brooklyn. i want to make one broader point about the date. and tim seen mike lee

teat commit -- committed party conservatives. folks who identify with the republican establishment. a variety of different conservatives here today. notice they are all talking about the same things, which is rather than have the , let's movefights forward and talk about what we can do for working and middle income americans. how can we be that event to the challenges of day to day lives? not about left versus right but the problems we are talking about. for me, this is very encouraging. just the start. the have a lot more work to do. i think this is very good news. it is natural or all of us. they see these problems unfolding. they see what fragile families

are doing to people. they are seeing how student loan debt is weighing people down. they have not always had a language for how to talk about this. i think we need a lot more of this. i think we have made a pretty good start. >> i definitely could not have said it better myself, so i will not try. with the launch of my book we are hoping to launch a discussion. thank you so much for your attention. please join me in thanking the panelists. [applause] >> coming up, senators elizabeth foreign and congressman keith ellison and celinda lake speak

at the campaign for america's future new populism conference. democrats on immigration legislation and steve king of iowa response to comments about him by senate leaders. join us tomorrow morning for a preview of ukraine's presidential election this sunday at. the country will vote for a successor to replace the ousted to russia int fled february. plus, live coverage at 10:00 eastern on c-span two. and in the afternoon, the relationship between north and south korea. also on c-span two. >> you can now take c-span with

you wherever you go, with our free c-span radio app or smartphone or tablet. listen to all three c-span tv channels or c-span radio anytime. there is a schedule of each of our networks so you can tune in anytime you want. play recent programs. c-span with you wherever you go. download your free app online for your iphone, android or blackberry. >> the campaign for america's future hosted a forum thursday on the gap between middle class and the wealthy. next, senator elizabeth war in a massachusetts delivers a keynote address. her remarks are 30 minutes. [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you so much for having me here today. i am delighted to be here. for that and the tatian. thank you for the introduction. i am glad that rosie last in parts of the book. -- laughed. books are part of how i fight. this is a book that i tried to write to draw in more people, because our fight cannot just be our talking to each other. we have to draw more people into it. so that is what it is about. a book written of gratitude. my parents who have never had much but always believed their kids would